Yes, Virginia, there is a Jesus!
Virginia’s Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell is catching flak from the ACLU because it does not like the fact that he has lifted the ban on police chaplains praying in Jesus’ name. Virginia’s former Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine had issued the ruling in 2008, and the ACLU gang charges that McDonnell is giving in to conservatives and Christians in revoking the Jesus ban.
Well, maybe another former Virginia governor influenced McDonnell—Thomas Jefferson. The author of Virginia’s famed Statute for Religious Freedom, Jefferson never tried to suppress Virginians’ or Americans’ free exercise of religion. In fact, as president in 1802, Jefferson invited Elder John Leland to preach a sermon in the U.S. House of Representatives. Leland, a Baptist lay preacher, surely mentioned Jesus. In that assembly sat Secretary of State James Madison, Jefferson’s close friend and collaborator and the author of the First Amendment. I suspect Jefferson and Madison knew more about the Constitution than the ACLU does.
Of course, the ACLU thinks child pornography is constitutionally protected. We’d rather see children constitutionally protected—from people like the ACLU.
The ACLU is in reality an “Anti-Christian Litigation Unit.” Its Virginia leader, Kent Willis, said the governor’s job is to protect “religious freedom for all.” Indeed, it is. But to deny Christians the right to pray in the name of Jesus is to disfavor them over others. No one says that a Jewish chaplain cannot mention the Torah. Muslim chaplains certainly cite the Koran.
Christians believe that Jesus is the Word made Flesh. To deny them the right to mention His name uniquely disfavors Christians. That invidious discrimination is what McDonnell rightly revoked.
McDonnell’s lifting of the ban on Jesus comes at the same time that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to go along with atheizers who wanted to tear down the cross in the Mojave Desert, which was erected to memorialize World War I soldiers.
U.S. soldiers who fought in World War II are remembered at the American Cemetery in Normandy, France. That beautiful memorial park was seen on television worldwide when Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Obama went there to observe various D-Day anniversaries. What strikes the visitor to this cemetery is the acres and acres of quiet, dignified white crosses. Every few yards you see a white Star of David as well. No one protested. No one complained. Americans felt humbled and honored to have such a moving tribute to the young men who gave up their lives so that we might live in freedom.
The American Cemetery is, after all, U.S. sovereign territory. It was deeded to our country in perpetuity by a grateful French people. President Reagan often said the only territory the United States gained from World War II was the verdant acres in which we buried our dead.
McDonnell’s bold actions follow in the footsteps of another great Virginian—George Washington. As president, Washington told the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, R.I.:
“[H]appily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that those who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. . . . May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
Where did President Washington get that wonderful phrase—”the stock of Abraham”—and that beautiful sentiment about the vine and fig tree? They come from the Bible, of course, the same Bible the ACLU regularly attacks whenever it is publicly quoted.
The ACLU’s attacks on Christianity would bulldoze all those Normandy crosses, all those Stars of David. Too often this radical outfit—whose court costs for their anti-Christian intifada are often reimbursed by the federal government—relies on intimidation and bluster to get its way. That’s why we should applaud Gov. Bob McDonnell for defending Virginia values, for upholding the religious and civil rights of all, and especially for standing up to these courtroom bullies.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top133 Comments to “Yes, Virginia, there is a Jesus!”
Can’t argue with this post at all! I hope he was encourage by the recent Cross opinion this past week issued by the Supremes.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder who they (ACLU types) thank for their freedoms? This is a sincere question, for I truly do not understand their thinking. Obviously not all our nations founders nor our freedom defenders were Christians, but they surly were fighting for the freedom of religion rather than a freedom from religion which appears to be the goal of the ACLU.
I too applaud Gov. McDonnell.
Report comment to moderator
We could use such a man in Colordo and the White House in lights of this
about the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. An how they are targeting Christian.
Fort Carson, CO is being targeted by this group
Group: Army symbol at Fort Carson is religious, should be changed
here is the link http://www.gazette.com/articles/group-97897-army-religious.html#slComments
“Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said that’s a reference to the Crusades and could embolden U.S. enemies who want to portray the war on terror as a Christian war on Islam.”
Report comment to moderator
“The Governor does not believe the state should tell chaplains of any faith how to pray. … Religious officials of all faiths should be allowed to pray according to the dictates of their own conscience, and in accordance with their faith traditions, while being respectful of the faith traditions of others.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/04/mcdonnell_lifts_ban_on_state_on_p.html
This policy puts the State Police chaplains in the same position as those in the U.S. Military, VA National Guard and other law enforcement agencies.
The ACLU of VA says this violates the First Amendment.
Report comment to moderator
Very apt description Ken: “Anti-Christian Litigation Unit”.
Thanks for the article. I won’t forget this new name for the ACLU.
Report comment to moderator
The ACLU of VA says this violates the First Amendment. – Louise like the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, they will not be happy until they have the Christian rights revoked.
Report comment to moderator
Roy, you are so right. But I predict they’ll never be happy because American religious freedoms will never be revoked!
Report comment to moderator
Louise I believe they will be happy once the anti-christ comes to power. But we all know how that will turn for them.
Report comment to moderator
Doesn’t this religious zealot Republican Governor know that if he would just give in on this matter, this time, the ACLU would be satisfied and never again try to tell other people how to pray in public? Get with the program, Gov.
Report comment to moderator
Lifting bans will simply not be tolerated in today’s America. Bans are the whole point for the ACLU.
Report comment to moderator
Comment deleted by moderator.
Report comment to moderator
You guys miss the whole point. Allowing a chaplain to utter the word “Jesus” is CLEARLY establishing Christianity as the official state religion of the USA. It’s exactly like demanding an oath to Christianity as a condition of voting, and exactly like taxing everybody to pay all our pastors a salary, and exactly like giving Joel Osteen and Rick Warren and Franklin Graham permanent seats in the Senate, and exactly like throwing people in jail for not going to church. Its THE SAME THING. Of COURSE it’s wrong and evil.
Report comment to moderator
Allowing a chaplain to utter the word “Jesus” is CLEARLY establishing Christianity as the official state religion of the USA.– so I guess you are against have Chaplains in the Military and have a Chaplain open Congress up in pray every day?
Report comment to moderator
John M., you believe that the Christian Chaplain shoud be bard from saying the Name of Jesus on Military Bases? Since they are being paid by the Governement.
Report comment to moderator
It is not the government’s role to tell Americans how to pray in public, nor is it their right to stop them.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, sounds like a good principle on which to base a government.
Report comment to moderator
So when a Muslim chaplain prays publicly in the name of Allah, or a Wiccan chaplain invokes the God and Goddess in offering the opening prayer for a council meeting, you’re all going to defend their religious freedom just as strongly, right?
Right?
Hello?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 04.30.10 AT 6:06 PM
So when a Muslim chaplain prays publicly in the name of Allah, or a Wiccan chaplain invokes the God and Goddess in offering the opening prayer for a council meeting, you’re all going to defend their religious freedom just as strongly, right?
Right?
Hello?
–
Steve an you wonder why people question your relationship with God.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG under the former gov, the Muslim chaplain ,Wiccan chaplain were able to. Only the Name above all Names, the Lord of Lords name was not permitted to be spoken by Chaplains.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, you must have missed the part that clearly explains the point is only for military chaplains.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Pastor Roy!
Report comment to moderator
Go GOV McDonnell! I’m from VA and am new to the site. BTW — Louise — Love the name
I was just surfing around for “like-minded” people, Biblical prophecy in the news, etc.
Not having had time to peruse the entire site (+ comments) please share with me the dominant views of the readers of this site. Specifically, foreign policy — Israel, et al.
Report comment to moderator
“he has lifted the ban on police chaplains praying in Jesus’ name.’ Steve the ban only coveraged (sorry for the misspelling) the Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Steve. in your zeal to attack the Christian Faith, you did not see that the ban only cover the Name of Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
Roy: No, only the name of Jesus was in contention because there are probably not any non-Christian chaplains seeking offer prayers that are specific to their own religion.
But I guarantee you that any chaplain who tried to offer prayers that exclude everyone not of their religion would also be restricted.
And I also guarantee you that not one of you who are preaching here about “freedom of religion” would step forward to defend them. You only want freedom for Christianity.
And Roy, I am beyond caring whether you believe my profession of Christian faith, but all I’m saying here is that American freedom of religion applies to all religions. In group settings, where a chaplain is offering prayers that are for a mixed group which includes more than one religion, the chaplain should not pray in a way that excludes them.
If you don’t like that, the better solution is to stop having government entangled with religion at all.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG under the former gov, the Muslim chaplain ,Wiccan chaplain were able to. Only the Name above all Names, the Lord of Lords name was not permitted to be spoken by Chaplains.
You seriously believe that somewhere in the rules was one saying that chaplains of any religion except Christianity could pray sectarian prayers, but Christians only had to make it generic?
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Report comment to moderator
Roy: No, only the name of Jesus was in contention because there are probably not any non-Christian chaplains seeking offer prayers that are specific to their own religion.
–
so again you call your self a Christian but support the idea of silencing the Name of Christ. The Lord of Lord, the King of Kings all to support, your world view of embracing exclude everyone.
“In group settings, where a chaplain is offering prayers that are for a mixed group which includes more than one religion, the chaplain should not pray in a way that excludes them. ”
Please show me how you back this view up with Scripture?
Report comment to moderator
“the ACLU because it does not like the fact that he has lifted the ban on police chaplains praying in Jesus’ name. Virginia’s former Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine had issued the ruling in 2008, ‘
what was the Ban? they could not use the name of Jesus. It was targeting the Christain Faith.
Steve you need to wake up.
Report comment to moderator
Please show me how you back this view up with Scripture?
I don’t. We don’t live in a theocracy governed by the Bible. We live in a free society where people are free to follow whatever religion they choose.
Christians like you do a great deal of harm to the cause of Christ because you show no understanding or respect for people who don’t already agree with you. That gives you very little chance of ever changing their minds.
And you also show no understanding of American freedom, or respect for it. The government cannot endorse one religion over others.
Report comment to moderator
Ken Blackwell says that McDonnell is “upholding the religious and civil rights of all.”
How does this uphold the religious rights of non-Christian police officers whom these chaplains will offer Christian prayers for?
The answer is: Nobody here cares about them, lip-service to the contrary. And that’s not a very good basis to try to change anyone’s mind and convince them to become Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Christians like you do a great deal of harm to the cause of Christ because you show no understanding or respect for people who don’t already agree with you. That gives you very little chance of ever changing their minds.
-
thank you Steve, I will gladly be counting with Christ and the Early Church. For they also show no understanding or respect for people who did not already agree with them. Why, because those people reject God, His Word, His Son and embraced SIN. Just like todays people.
Report comment to moderator
Please show me how you back this view up with Scripture?
I don’t. We don’t live in a theocracy governed by the Bible. We live in a free society where people are free to follow whatever religion they choose.
-
Steve, again a poor understand of what it means to be a Christian. Our views shold be backed up God’s Word. It is the standard by which we are called to live by.
It is a shame your church has failed you.
Report comment to moderator
And you also show no understanding of American freedom, or respect for it. The government cannot endorse one religion over others. –
But Steve, the Government can reject and try to silence the Christian. An that is what happen. For a Christian, the Name of Jesus, is the name above all names. An to be told you can not say it. Is silencing the Christian.
Which you are in favor off.
Report comment to moderator
In this post, Blackwell engages in a good deal of intentional obfuscation, as he keeps conflating the Establishment Clause with the Free Exercise Clause.
No one is attempting to deny Christians the opportunity to freely exercise their religion. Instead, they are trying to prevent Christians from using public funds to exercise that freedom. Certainly the Free Exercise Clause is not so broad as to require the state to provide financial support for that exercise.
Frankly, I’m not interested in paying for police chaplains of any religion. In an era of limited public funds, it seems that this is an unnecessary expense that can be cut.
Report comment to moderator
RSD,
The public forum, regardless of how much government or other agencies (private or public) are involved in them or subsidizing them, is for the people and thus these people should be free to express themselves–free of gov’t bans. A politician should be free to quote the Bible all he wants and make his religion the center-piece of his campaign and personal mission (short of advocating the establishment of his religion as a federal case) and then the people get to decide at the ballot box whether they want that.
We the people are the government and we the people can use gov’t funds according to the Constitutional process that is laid out for whatever voice we all want to have or give in shaping policies and funding priorities.
If you don’t like it, work it out at the local level. Local communities and local gov’ts should have more say than the feds or the high courts over what sort of expressions they want to support.
But passing laws (which the First Amendment expressly prohibits) or enforcing policies to ban all expressions of faith from public sector events and encounters is tantamount, in my view, to ESTABLISHING secularism or atheism as our national religion.
Christians, Jews, atheists, Muslims, Chicago Cub fans, computer geeks, agnostics, and many more should get to express themselves freely and the people can respond freely to that expression with approval or not. But no laws or bans please.
Report comment to moderator
To relegate all religious expression only to private venues is to cease to become America. Religious freedom is a part of America’s fabric (including our political fabric) precisely because we allow it in public, not just in private (unlike Saudi Arabia and the former USSR).
Report comment to moderator
Americans believe there are some things that go deeper and beyond what government funding should be able to determine, influence or control. Free expression of faith is one of those things.
Report comment to moderator
This is a simple question: Do private citizen clergy have the right to pray as they desire in the manner they desire within the bounds of their respective faiths? When any government entity answers, “No”, then it has overstepped the bounds of Constitutional protections. The 1st Amendment, in observing that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…,” must be considered as a whole. The state cannot establish AND it cannot prohibit. To declare any element of particular faith’s prayer element is banned is a de facto prohibition and, thus, violates the Constitution. McDonnell is no rube. He is simply upholding a right for which our founders fought and bled over.
Now, the underlying question, and one more profound, is whether or not the Constitution is a “living” document.
Report comment to moderator
A former law professor of mine recently blogged about the Establishment Clause, with some good observations (emphasis mine):
The first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution were adopted because many of the Founders feared that the new federal government they were setting up would become tyrannical. Other Founders did not share that fear, because the federal government was to have only enumerated powers and not general powers to do anything it deemed to be in the general welfare. … As regards the establishment clause, it is clear that at the very least it was meant to prevent the federal government from creating a new Church, on the model of the Church of England – let’s call it the “Church of the United States.” The fear was that this church would be “established” and funded with taxpayer dollars throughout the land. The creation of a compulsory, or even a subsidized, American church was precisely the kind of British model that the founders all wished to avoid, and so James Madison (who was one of those who felt there was no real risk of federal expansion anyway) was quite content to accede to the requests of his more nervous colleagues and write this prohibition into the Constitution. No federal church was established, of course, but the same people who adopted the Establishment Clause also created a national day of prayer, named Chaplains for the military academies and allocated moneys for the evangelization of Indian tribes. A few (notably Thomas Jefferson) wrote that government should be totally divorced from any religious actions, but even Jefferson as President allocated money to pay for priests and churches on Indian reservations, if the Indians so requested. Again, support for religion in general, without preference for any specific sect, was the order of the day.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark 04.30.10 AT 8:15 PM
To relegate all religious expression only to private venues is to cease to become America. Religious freedom is a part of America’s fabric (including our political fabric) precisely because we allow it in public, not just in private (unlike Saudi Arabia and the former USSR).
–
the only religious expression being relegate to private venues is the Christian Faith. They are putting limits on any other faith but ours.
Report comment to moderator
GCambpell asks whether the Constitution is a “living” document. I’ve pointed out before that the “living document” idea is usually put forward by people who don’t like what the document actually says, and want to have its meaning change to something different. (This is used on the Bible too by liberal theologians.) Anyway, I like some of the reasons Johan Goldberg has articulated against the idea of a “living” Constitution:
http://article.nationalreview.com/269307/its-alive/jonah-goldberg
…and his observation of how the living-constitution idea usually comes with a double standard:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah082306.php3
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy (#41),
Thanks for the links.
Oh, and – good to see that you’re still breathing.
Report comment to moderator
Frankly, I’m not interested in paying for police chaplains of any religion. In an era of limited public funds, it seems that this is an unnecessary expense that can be cut.
—-
what about Military Chaplains are you willing to pay for them?
Report comment to moderator
This is a simple question: Do private citizen clergy have the right to pray as they desire in the manner they desire within the bounds of their respective faiths? When any government entity answers, “No”, then it has overstepped the bounds of Constitutional protections.
If we were talking about pastors in their churches, this would be relevant. But we’re not. We’re talking about government employees, hired to tend to Christians and non-Christians alike.
Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize the promotion of any one religion?
Report comment to moderator
…promotion of … religion
That’s a pretty twisted — and secular fundamentalist — view of a chaplain’s purpose.
Report comment to moderator
If we were talking about pastors in their churches, this would be relevant. But we’re not. We’re talking about government employees, hired to tend to Christians and non-Christians alike.
Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize the promotion of any one religion
-
Steve I guess you are for tell the Military Christian Chaplains, they can not preach or mention the name Jesus. Why. Your Words sis not mine “We’re talking about government employees, hired to tend to Christians and non-Christians alike.
Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize the promotion of any one religion”
The Military Christian Chaplains are government employees. Shame on you
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy 04.30.10 AT 11:28 PM
…promotion of … religion
That’s a pretty twisted — and secular fundamentalist — view of a chaplain’s purpose.
–
do you get the impress Steve has a problem with Christian Chaplain using the Lord Name?
Report comment to moderator
It is a same that people who call themselves Christian, would support a law that would stop Christian Chaplain from using the name of Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
[Roy] Do you get the impress Steve has a problem with Christian Chaplain using the Lord Name?
No, not at all. Steve’s points are valid and spot on. We don’t leave in a Christian theocracy. We DO live in a great country, and part of what makes it great is the religious freedom we allow and enjoy. That freedom, speaking from the perspective of the government, needs to allow/include all religions.
Report comment to moderator
It’s a simple question: If a Muslim chaplain led a prayer for a group that included Christians, and prayed in the name of Allah, who here would be cheering the religious freedom?
If you would not, but you do cheer this, then you are only for religious freedom for Christians.
Report comment to moderator
And lest Pastor Roy should continue to not get it, let me be clear that I am NOT saying Muslim chaplains should be able to force prayers to Allah on Christians.
I am saying that the government should stay out of religion and religion should stay out of government.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
We’re not talking about politicians here. Nor are we talking about how individuals express themselves–when speaking for themselves–in a public forum. So, your illustrations are not really germane to the discussion.
McDonnell’s has absolutely nothing to do with the Free Exercise Clause, so it’s purely stupid or dishonest to be referring to it. This issue relates to the Establishment Clause.
I believe that police chaplains can pray in Jesus’ name in most situations without violating the Establishment Clause. After all, in most instances, these prayers are proffered in fora where attendance is voluntary, such as in one-on-one counseling. But I take issue with Blackwell’s (and your) dishonest line of argumentation, which falsely suggests that the previous rule infringed on the Free Exercise rights of the chaplains.
Report comment to moderator
Steve stated “We’re talking about government employees, hired to tend to Christians and non-Christians alike.
Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize the promotion of any one religion”
My question is Steve are you against Christian Chaplain Military or police using the name of Jesus.
Juliana same question are you against Christian Chaplain Military or police using the name of Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
If we take Steve arugment then yes he must be aginst Christian Chaplain Military or police using the name of Jesus. The Sad part is he call himself a christian.
Report comment to moderator
It is a sad that people who call themselves Christian, would support a law that would stop Christian Chaplain from using the name of Jesus.
Father forgive them.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, your posts are right, however I am not sure how you would argue with McDonnel’s action, as he overturned a gov’t policy that was prohibiting one specific religion.
The one post that makes no sense is post 50, as it is besides the post. No one is forced to hear the chaplain, as their services are voluntary. However yes if some Christians want to go to a Muslim chaplain’s service, he has the full right to pray to Allah.
Report comment to moderator
[Roy] Juliana same question are you against Christian Chaplain Military or police using the name of Jesus.
Of course not. If he’s a Christian. And if he’s a Muslim I’m not against him praying to Allah. He’s a government employee and the United States government cannot be exclusive in matters of religion. Now if the government wanted to starting telling pastors they can’t use the name of Christ in their own churches / life, that’s a whole other matter.
[Roy] I will gladly be counting with Christ and the Early Church. For they also show no understanding or respect for people who did not already agree with them. Why, because those people reject God, His Word, His Son and embraced SIN. Just like todays people.
Respectfully, here you are just plain mistaken Pastor Roy. Certainly Christ, the apostles and the early church fathers were firm in their stance that Christ is the Savior of the world and the [only] way, truth and life, and that we call upon His name to be saved (as am I); but there was not the vehemence and judgment in them (toward the unbelievers) that you seem to assume, and personally employ. The Scriptures are extremely clear that we are not to judge those outside the church.
Matthew 7:1 — “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”
Luke 6:37 — “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.”
John 12:47 — “And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” [These are Jesus' own words.]
1 Cor. 4:4-5 — “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.”
1 Cor. 5:12-13 — “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? … them that are without God judgeth.”
Pastor Roy, you also mentioned church fathers, so I would submit the following.
St. Theophan the Recluse — “As soon as [the enemy] shows you some fault in your neighbor, hasten to repel this thought, lest it take root in you and grow. Cast it out, so that no trace is left in you, and replace it by the thought of the good qualities you know your neighbor to possess, or of those people generally should have.
“If you still feel the impulse to pass judgment, add to this the truth that you are given no authority for this and that the moment you assume this authority you thereby make yourself worthy of judgment and condemnation, not before powerless men, but before God, the all-powerful Judge of all.
“Even if a persons sin is not only obvious, but very grievous and comes from a hardened and unrepentant heart, do not condemn him, but raise your eyes to the wondrous and incomprehensible judgments of God; then you will see that many people, formerly full of iniquity, later repented and reached a high degree of sanctity, and that, on the other hand, others, who were on a high level of perfection, fell into a deep abyss.
“Take care, lest you also suffer this calamity through judging others.”
St. John Chrysostom — “We have to accomplish the salvation of men by word, meekness, and exhortation.”
St. John of the Ladder — “I have known a man who sinned openly, and repented secretly; I condemned him as a profligate, but he was chaste before God, having propitiated Him by a sincere conversion … You will begin to be wary of judging the sinful, if you always remember that Judas was in the company of Christ’s disciples, and the thief was in the company of murderers; but it is a wondrous thing how in a single instant they exchanged places” and
“if anyone could see his own vices accurately without the veil of self-love, he would worry about no one else in this life, considering that he would not have time enough for mourning for himself, even though he were to live a hundred years…” and
“If you truly love your neighbor, as you say, then pray secretly and do not mock the man; for this is the kind of love that is acceptable to the Lord.”
St. Macarius of Optina — “As to those people who are good and kind but are not believers, we cannot and must not judge them. The ways of the Lord are inscrutable; let us leave these good people entirely to His judgment and to the grace of His Providence. He alone knows how and why He has built the argosy of humanity, and the small boat of each one of us, such as it is.”
St. Gregory the Dialogist — “Who is able to enter into the secret judgements of God? Wherefore those things which in divine examination we cannot comprehend, we ought rather to fear than curiously to discuss.”
St. Dorotheos of Gaza — “Why are we so ready to judge our neighbor? Why are we so concerned about the burden of others? We have plenty to be concerned about, each one has his own debt and his own sins. It is for God alone to judge, to justify or to condemn. He knows the state of each one of us and our capacities, our deviations, and our gifts, our constitution and our preparedness, and it is for him to judge each of these things according to the knowledge that he alone has. For God judges the affairs of a bishop in one way and those of a prince in another. His judgment is for an abbot or for a disciple, he judges differently the senior and the neophyte, the sick man and the healthy man. Who could understand all these judgments except the one who has done everything, formed everything, knows everything?
And a final Scripture that seems may be applicable:
James 4:11-12 — “Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?”
= = =
Pastor Roy, you have a love, passion and purpose for God that is evident. I thank you for that. I just don’t see the Scriptural backing for repeatedly calling out others in condemnation.
Report comment to moderator
And if my post comes across as judging you, Pastor Roy, please forgive me. I too am a sinner and need the Lord’s mercy.
Report comment to moderator
again It is a sad that people who call themselves Christian, would support a law that would stop Christian Chaplain from using the name of Jesus. No matter how you want to explain.
Father forgive them.
Pastor Roy, you have a love, passion and purpose for God that is evident. I thank you for that. I just don’t see the Scriptural backing for repeatedly calling out others in condemnation.
Juliana
It is not condemnation it is the fact someone calls himself a christain but support laws taht silence the name of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Matthew 7:1-5 (New King James Version)
Matthew 7
Do Not Judge
1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye
Juliana you forgot versus 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.
So if I use the Word as my measure tthen the Word will measure me. The question is are people afraid of letting the Word of God Measure them.
Report comment to moderator
Luke 6:37-38 (New King James Version)
Do Not Judge
37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”
Juliana the ending of 38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”
Report comment to moderator
John 12:42-50 (New King James Version)
Walk in the Light
42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.
44 Then Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. 45 And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. 46 I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness. 47 And if anyone hears My words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.”
Juliana the Word of God will judge them . See Versus 38 there. The problem being a shame of the name of Christ. An I would say supporting laws that stops Christian from using the name of Christ is a sign taht person is a shame of the Name.
Report comment to moderator
1 Corinthians 4:1-5 (New King James Version)
1 Corinthians 4
Stewards of the Mysteries of God
1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.
“Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful
” An rjecting the name of Christ shows that a person is not fatihful an support the law that stop a fellow Christian from using the King of Kins Nmae. Is a sing of someone who is not faithful.
Report comment to moderator
Corinthians 5:9-13 (New King James Version)
Immorality Must Be Judged
9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”
Juliana go back an read these versus, if we are not to judge how then do we determine who falls under versus 11?
Report comment to moderator
James 4:11-12 (New King James Version)
Do Not Judge a Brother
11 Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is one Lawgiver,[a] who is able to save and to destroy. Who[b] are you to judge another?
you are right an I do not judge my brother and sister in the Lord. but as a Minster of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I will defend all brother and sister in the Lord, right to use the Name of Christ. If you do not like that I am sorry. If you dislike me or hate me because I will not back down from using the name Christ. Well, that is your problem that must be worked out.
I am done for now. Folks I am sorry for the back to back posting. The Word of God is Important and the Name of Christ is important to me. An I am sadden that people would support such a law baning the name of Christ
Report comment to moderator
RSD wrote; “We’re not talking about politicians here.”
Huh? Sure we are. Virginia’s Gov. Bob McDonnell is a politician and he is getting the flack for revoking the ban. Polticians make policies.
RSD wrote; “Nor are we talking about how individuals express themselves–when speaking for themselves–in a public forum.”
Sure we are.
RSD, I guess we cannot even agree what we are talking about here.
Report comment to moderator
The main thing we are talking about is freedom. I’m for it, even for Christians (and gov’t funding should not be a pretext for abridging or revoking our freedom.
RSD wrote: “McDonnell’s has absolutely nothing to do with the Free Exercise Clause, so it’s purely stupid or dishonest to be referring to it.”.
Can’t you discuss this respectfully, sir?
The Establishment Clause and the exercise clause are part of the SAME exact amendement. I will quote GCampbell above at #38:
“The 1st Amendment, in observing that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…,” must be considered as a whole.”
I believe that police chaplains can pray in Jesus’ name in any situation they deem needed and congress should pass no laws to stop them. If his discretion is flawed as to time & place, then handle that locally.
Report comment to moderator
In voluntary settings, chaplains can say anything they want to. The problem is that chaplains also preside over group events where attendance is mandatory or strongly encouraged.
I would not want to be compelled to attend an event where Muslim prayers were going to be said by a representative of the government. Pastor Roy would not want to be either.
I also would not want a Muslim to be compelled to attend an event where Christian prayers were going to be said by a representative of the government. Pastor Roy has no problem with that.
Report comment to moderator
JULIANA,
Very appropriate comments in #57.
When we make strong judgmental comments about others we usually do so with very limited understanding. Even though we may think we see them very clearly, there are things about them that we neither see nor understand. Most of the time on these posts we all say things that do not fully explain our position. I know that I always wonder if I explained myself accurately. And it is common that some people misunderstand what I say.
Pastor Roy is obviously passionate about the Lord Jesus and willing to defend Him at any cost. He would pull a sword and chop off Steve’s ear if he could.
(I don’t really believe you really would Pastor Roy) But I am reminded that in the midst of the trial against Him, Jesus, like a sheep before His shearers was dumb. He could have called ten thousand angels but chose to suffer instead.
I don’t believe that Steve has denied Christ. I think I hear him saying that we live in a secular democracy rather than a Christian Theocracy. And I think I hear him saying that the best way to represent Christ in a secular democracy is with personal-voluntary rather than government-enforced righteousness.
While it is our right, as citizens of the US, to criticize anything we wish, I am reminded that both Jesus and Paul lived under governments no better than ours and it is not recorded that either of them focused even the slightest attention on fighting their government.
I am not saying that Christians should stay out of politics. We have just as many political rights and responsibilities as any other citizens. But to make our political positions appear to be a central tenant of Biblical Christianity is to misrepresent Jesus and to mislead not only those we seek to introduce to Christ but ourselves as well.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
I suppose that I should clarify.
This issue has nothing to do with restricting the speech of politicians or restricting the speech of government employees outside of their official capacity. Your comments falsely suggest that the previous rule does affect such conduct.
You also falsely suggest that the Free Exercise Clause is implicated. Instead of retracting your lie, you suggest that the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause ARE indeed related because they are “part of the SAME exact amendment.” Sure. The same Amendment also gives you the right to redress grievances to the government. Is that also related? Give me a break.
Further, please point to Supreme Case law to support your interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. The controlling case is Employment Division v. Smith, a case that was penned by conservative icon Justice Scalia. There’s not one shred of Supreme Court precedent that supports your expansive reading of the Free Exercise Clause.
Jesus says that our “yes” should be “yes”, and that our “no” should be “no”. Engaging in excessive spin–to the point of obfuscation and misrepresentation of the relevant issues–seems to violate this principle, as well as the Ninth Commandment.
Report comment to moderator
RSD: A shockingly large number of conservative Christians seem to think they have a pass to disregard the Ninth Commandment.
Report comment to moderator
Wait, how are people disregarding the ninth amendment? I do not see anyone here suggesting the delegation of rights of the people to the federal gov’t.
Report comment to moderator
When a chaplain prays, he is not establishing a religion on behalf of the government. He is praying to the god of his choice, and I very deliberately left the “g” in lower case. If a Muslim chaplain prays to Allah, I respect his right to do so, and I have no desire to stop him, but a Christian chaplain deserves the same respect. Chaplains aren’t dealing with school children. They are serving adults, and those adults understand that a Hindu can pray to many gods. They have to respect it, not join in. There is no way there can be a generic prayer, and there shouldn’t be.
I realize some here have big problems with the basic meaning of certain words — like “no” — but don’t add “free” and “exercise” to your let’s change the meaning so we can do what we want column.
Report comment to moderator
One of the more badly written posts I’ve seen in a while.
the ACLU thinks child pornography is constitutionally protected. We’d rather see children constitutionally protected—from people like the ACLU.
that came out of nowhere, what does this have to do with the issue at hand other than an ad hominium attack on your opponent.
But to deny Christians the right to pray in the name of Jesus is to disfavor them over others. No one says that a Jewish chaplain cannot mention the Torah. Muslim chaplains certainly cite the Koran. Christians believe that Jesus is the Word made Flesh. To deny them the right to mention His name uniquely disfavors Christians. That invidious discrimination is what McDonnell rightly revoked
Here’s the confusion between free exercise of religion and the establishment of one religion over an other.
And then Blackwell digresses into war cemeteries as if the shape of the tombstone has relevance in this issue. A burial in accordance to a soldier’s wishes is part of the implicit or even explicit agreement when he or she signs up. However, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand — can a gov’t employee invoke a specific religion at a mandatory employee function?
Where did President Washington get that wonderful phrase—”the stock of Abraham”—and that beautiful sentiment about the vine and fig tree?
Biblical metaphors and allusions are part of the English language as are Shakespearean metaphors and allusions, it hardly means the worship of one or the other.
The ACLU’s attacks on Christianity would bulldoze all those Normandy crosses, all those Stars of David. Too often this radical outfit—whose court costs for their anti-Christian intifada are often reimbursed by the federal government—relies on intimidation and bluster to get its way
A whole lot more ad hominium thrown out here. “bulldoze” “radical” “intifada” “intimidation” “bluster” and “anti-Christian” — wow everything here but …… “Nazi” or “Communist”
I wonder when the anti-immigrant group FAIR sues Arizona police for not enforcing the new law, Blackwell will criticizes them for demanding reimbursement for their court costs.
Finally — why is there such a thing as police chaplain’s in the first place? If a police officer needs religious counseling, there are plenty of priests, pastors, etc. willingly to offer their services. Isn’t here where advocates of limited gov’t should step in?
Report comment to moderator
Many people here (on this board and in the country at large) have a problem distinguishing between what it means to practice your religion or express your faith and the governmental establishment of a particular religion. The government may not prohibit the first two, and congress may not pass laws that do the second. The court has often been used to circumvent this restriction on the congress.
Establishment requires more than someone practicing/expressing their faith while being in an official capacity. People do not loose their rights just because they are elected or hired. And there is no constitutional right of freedom FROM religion.
As for hiring chaplains in the first place, that should be up to the state or municipality in question. If the people believe that it would be beneficial for their officers to have a chaplain available (of whatever denomination or religion) then it should be up to them and them alone. They are the ones who pay for it.
–Debra (formerly DJ)
Report comment to moderator
The State Police Chaplains are volunteers. The program began in 1979 to minister to department employees and grieving families.
In 2008, under Gov. Kaine, now chairman of the DNC, when they were banned from praying to Jesus, 6 of the 17 quit.
“Religious officials of all faiths should be allowed to pray acording to the dictates of their own conscience.”
This policy puts the State Police chaplains in the same position as those in the United States Military, Virginia National Guard and other law enforcement agancies.”
Report comment to moderator
Steve G., there is no point at all in having a chaplain if that chaplain cannot speak of God–and the only true God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. If you don’t want chaplains speaking of God, then fine, don’t hire chaplains. If you hire a chaplain, it’s worse than silly to say, “Oh, but don’t talk about God.” (And if you want to make the word “God” so meaningless as to not mean the Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, once again, don’t hire a chaplain. Hire a motivational speaker or something.)
Report comment to moderator
The chaplains are volunteers.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, I discontinued reading your post when I came to the word “lie.” Your comments are disrespectful, small and morally banckrupt. They are unworthy of attention.
Report comment to moderator
“Congress shall make no law…”
It has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it.
Report comment to moderator
“Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize the promotion of any one religion?” Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize abortions? Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize the public school system? Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize conservation efforts? Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize politicians’ boondoggles? Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize banks and the auto industry? Etc.
There are a lot of things taxpayers are forced to subsidize. More than any one person (or, probably, several people) can list, I’d wager.
I agree that these things are wrong. That’s a very conservative viewpoint, actually.
Report comment to moderator
These chaplains are volunteers. Taxpayers are not being forced to subsidize the promotion of any one religion.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and I forgot Social Security, too.
Report comment to moderator
How about – the ‘Anti Christian Luciferian Union’ or the ‘Anti Constitutional Litigious Ulcer’ (on our Body Politic) or the
‘Association of Combative Liberty Underminers’ or the ‘Atheistic Cadre of Leftist Unbelievers (in the inarguable Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our Constitutional Republic)? I’m just sayin’, either the ACLU is grossly and egregiously historically ignorant or they could be in the running for the Outstanding, Unsurpassed American Liers Award (of the past 60 years or so). You cannot be as intelligent and well educated as they apparently are while spouting the indefensible drivel they are know for, when the American historical record is readily available and abundantly clear to anyone interested in the Founder’s ‘original intent’ regarding religion, freely exercised! Can’t have it both ways!
Report comment to moderator
#82: Oh, right, I missed that. There you go, then.
Report comment to moderator
TJS, don’t touch my Social Security. I’m still working on getting it all back
Report comment to moderator
#26: I think he was more saying that the rules are unequally and very unfairly enforced.
Report comment to moderator
#86: And thus, Social Security will linger on.
Although I suppose I do understand the feeling. I just think someone eventually has to decide that it’s done enough damage.
Report comment to moderator
I am saying that the government should stay out of religion and religion should stay out of government.
Terrible idea. All nations should openly acknowledge Christ as King.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: Steve G., there is no point at all in having a chaplain if that chaplain cannot speak of God–and the only true God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. If you don’t want chaplains speaking of God, then fine, don’t hire chaplains.
Which is exactly my point. This case is about police chaplains (not military as some have incorrectly said), and police officers in America have plenty of choices for spiritual counseling. Why is the government involved to begin with?
Report comment to moderator
Steve, the government just got uninvolved by by acknowledging Christian chaplains’ Constitutional right to pray in the name of Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
How hilarious is it that SteveG is asking:
“Why is the government involved to begin with?”
It has long seemed to me that SteveG was on the left. The left wants gov’t involved in just about EVERYTHING humanly possible.
* Obama is hiring czars and creating agencies and commissions left and left (as opposed to left and right).
* The left wants a branch of the federal government to force all states to mandate that abortion be legal.
* The left wants to use any branch of gov’t possible to change the very definition of marriage.
* The left wants to spend our money on nearly anything and everything to expand the size of gov’t and increase our dependency on it.
* The left wants to give more and more money and power to the gov’t to fix nearly any problem that comes up.
* The left wants the federal gov’t to get more and more involved in the details of the education our children receive.
* The left wants the gov’t more and more involved in the health care and health coverage industries. That’s very intimate involvement too.
* Now the left wants the gov’t to be more involved in controling Wall street and the financial sector.
* The left wants a nanny state with the gov’t as the nanny.
It is advisable to think carefully for those of us on the right to clamor too much for more gov’t involvement in religion. In fact, the point of this thread is that we on the right want the gov’t to make no laws restricting the religious freedom we have as Americans in public, private and in whatever role we find ourselves as free citizens. We can make our own decisions about when to speak up or be silent (and there is a time for both).
Report comment to moderator
Yeah yeah yeah, we know, we know, you hate “the left” and everything it stands for, and you never get tired of writing long, boring screeds about it.
None of which has anything to do with justifying why government employees should be endorsing a religion as part of their official duties.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, the chaplains are VOLUNTEERS!
Report comment to moderator
Can’t address my points, eh SteveG? When you cannot measure up to the discussion, just accuse womeone of “hating.”
Government employees are human beings and in America their freedoms should be respected too. “Congress shall make no law…”
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark 05.02.10 AT 9:21 AM
Can’t address my points, eh SteveG? When you cannot measure up to the discussion, just accuse womeone of “hating.”
Government employees are human beings and in America their freedoms should be respected too. “Congress shall make no law…”
–
he is a shame of the Name of Christ. That is why he agree with the law that stop Chritian from using the name of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
missed a letter
he is a shame of the Name of Christ. That is why he agree with the law that stop Christian from using the name of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Why should taxpayers be forced to subsidize the promotion ……..?” That’s a very conservative viewpoint, actually.
Actually its not. Only the anarchist on the left and right are accurate with this — no gov’t intervention no matter what the case. On the right you frequently find favor with expansion of gov’t in the favor of law and order and morality witness the rights support of the current “papers please” law in Arizona whereas the left will favor gov’t intervention in economic areas hence the support for Wall Street Reform. Its not whether the gov’t should intervene but when or where. Look at Joel’s long list almost all his cases are of the left demanding a gov’t role in economic or material aspects of society. The only real exception is marriage and even there I would argue that if the Christian Right had been proactive and compromised (as opposed to reactionary), the left would’ve been happy with gay couples having the same civil rights as married couples.
These chaplains are volunteers. Taxpayers are not being forced to subsidize the promotion of any one religion.
Now that clears up one point but given that they are practicing a religion with state employees on the state’s time the state is still favoring one religion over an other. I still don’t see the justification for chaplains (free or not) in the police force. Its not like an officer can’t obtain free religious counseling off job site.
when the American historical record is readily available and abundantly clear to anyone interested in the Founder’s ‘original intent’ regarding religion, freely exercised!
no-one is denying free exercise the problem is the establishment of one religion.
Report comment to moderator
The prayers of a Muslim chaplain do not establish Islam as an official government religion, any more than a Jewish, Catholic or Protestant chaplain does.
Instead of Gov. McDonnell, those who are so offended should go after Congress, which establishes military chaplancies, or better yet, the Commander in Chief.
In fact, without military chaplains the government could be infringing on servicemen’s rights of freely exercising their religions, especially in foreign lands.
Chaplains are not the problem, intolerance is.
Report comment to moderator
those who are so offended should go after Congress, which establishes military chaplancies, or better yet, the Commander in Chief.
You are confusing two issues police chaplains vs armed forces chaplains. The police force is a wholly domestic force given the mandate to provide law and order and is at the service of the people whereas the armed forces are normally employed only against foreign bodies or threats.
In the case of chaplains, a policeman can find a priest, pastor, imam etc outside of the job site. A member of the armed forces may not be able to find pastoral counseling off site especially when overseas.
n fact, without military chaplains the government could be infringing on servicemen’s rights of freely exercising their religions, especially in foreign lands
How? when one signs up one knows he or she can be sent overseas which offer different living conditions than one can expect at home. When one expects the army to supply the chaplain one is expecting the gov’t to aid in religious expression, not providing this aid is not the same as impeding religious expression. If sending a soldier without a chaplain overseas impedes religious expression, does a corporation sending an employee overseas without a chaplain constituting a breach of religious freedom?
Report comment to moderator
#98 – “On the right you frequently find favor with expansion of gov’t in the favor of law and order and morality witness the right’s support of the current “papers please” law in Arizona…”
Incorrect, HRW. The right simply believes that laws already on the books should be respected. The right reegards the protection of national sovereignty and the rule of law as a legitimate role of gov’t–not necessarily a grounds for any sort of alleged “expansion.”
Report comment to moderator
#98 – “…if the Christian Right had been proactive and compromised (as opposed to reactionary), the left would’ve been happy with gay couples having the same civil rights as married couples.”
Compromising our principles to make the left happy has long left our culture and society (not to mention the Republican Party) in ruins AND at the same time never made the left happy at all.
Report comment to moderator
The branches of U.S. military service are creations of Congress, which is prohibited by the First Amendment to our Constitution from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion.
In the last century this First Amendment was also applied to each state and local government. For nearly 30 years VA State Trooper chaplains had no restrictions on their religious speech, and now after about a year and a half it is returned as constitutionally protected.
I am not the confused one here. The citizens of VA have every right to decide the availability of spiritual counselors who especially understand the specific problems of troopers’ jobs.
This might be different in Canada and I wouldn’t care one whit.
Report comment to moderator
Louise has hit the nail on the head:
“Chaplains are not the problem, intolerance is.
Intolerant legalism powerfully wielded to control speech and freedom is all the rage for the left these days.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, the remarks of HRW 98 are exactly what he complains about when other bloggers or posters throw in what he gets in a huff about and calls ad hominem attacks. I think he just wants to obfuscate and distract from the weakness and ignorance of First Amendment issues. Hardly worth any more time from me. He isn’t serious, he’s just argumentative for its own sake.
Report comment to moderator
The right simply believes that laws already on the books should be respected. The right reegards the protection of national sovereignty and the rule of law as a legitimate role of gov’t–not necessarily a grounds for any sort of alleged “expansion.”
there is an argument to be made for both sides on the Arizona law, however, the law as passed does move from inquiring on immigrant status in the course of investigating a crime to actively seeking illegal immigrants. This effectively allows the police to ask for papers of anyone who strikes their fancy.
Interestingly this makes Arizona more European like as both the left and right in Europe have no problems with this type of police action. The need for police to justify their inquiry is a unique feature in North America that many of my European friends comment on (with approval).
Report comment to moderator
Compromising our principles to make the left happy has long left our culture and society (not to mention the Republican Party) in ruins AND at the same time never made the left happy at al
I fail to see how granting some sort of civil union status to gay couples would destroy Christian principles.
Report comment to moderator
103
I fail to see how the removal of a chaplain impedes the free exercise of religion for a state trooper. He can always find pastoral counseling off site. Why have the gov’t provide something which is provided for elsewhere?
the remarks of HRW 98 are exactly what he complains about when other bloggers or posters throw in what he gets in a huff about and calls ad hominem attacks.
Now I’m really confused here. I complained about Blackwells’ lack of logic and resort to ad hominium but I never complain when commentators attack me, I just ignore it. I’m also confused how my 98 is ad hominium — however if you feel it is there is “Report to moderator” you can click.
Report comment to moderator
No, 98 wasn’t ad hominem. The worst things in it were run-on sentences.
You do over-simplify, HRW. I wouldn’t say “no gov’t intervention no matter what the case.” There are cases where gov’t intervention is Constitutional and necessary. I don’t think any of the cases I mentioned are either one of those, though.
I agree for the large part with your criticisms of the right and especially the Christian right. For the record, I do not like the Arizona law either.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I didn’t say that state troopers lost their 1st Amendment rights without a chaplain. That was my point for military servicemen.
Yet, many American states and municipalities recognize the value of accesssible chaplains who can relate to specific cultural and criminal complications police may face in the tension of their work. They even can work as liaisons to facilitate smoother community relations, very much like military chagplains do in other countries.
My ad hominem remark simply referred to your complaints about Blackwell’s illogic in his own essay, while you threw in your own irrelevant topics. No thought of myself or reporting anything.
Report comment to moderator
As long as they’re not presiding over events where people are compelled to attend, I have no problem with it. However, my understanding of a chaplain’s job does include some events where they are offering prayers for assemblies where attendance is not voluntary.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, until proven otherwise, I have to presume they are extremely sensitive to that. I always want to have my facts straight, so I welcome being corrected.
Report comment to moderator
#106 – “This effectively allows the police to ask for papers of anyone who strikes their fancy.”
This is a false and inappropirate attitude to take toward law enforcement, especially when the law itself clearly states otherwise and this practice has not occured. But I would trust the alleged “fancy” of a man who puts his life and safety on the line daily to enforce our laws than I would any activist who is afraid that Democrats will not get as many fraudulent votes from illegals.
Report comment to moderator
#107 – “I fail to see how granting some sort of civil union status to gay couples would destroy Christian principles.”
Just how many changes to the definition of a civil union would it take for you to admit that Christian principles are being destroyed? Would Christian principles be compromised by polygamist civil unions? Would they be hurt by giving civil union equality to polyamorists? How about same-sex sibling civil unions?
Report comment to moderator
Why can’t Christians tend to their own and keep their noses out of other people’s business?
Report comment to moderator
And what about anti-Christians.
Report comment to moderator
I am not aware of “anti-Christians” trying to meddle in other people’s love lives or marital desires.
Report comment to moderator
Skipped most of the posts on here (well the liberals anyway) because you are arguing the same old hogwash. “will you protect a Muslim’s right to say Allah?”, etc.
Yes I will because what Tim Kaine did in 2008 broke every rule of the book. Basically what the puppet governor did was say that you can utter every WORD except JESUS!
So I stand behind a governor who says it is not within the government’s authority to decide WHICH name the particular person prays in. Read the decision next time before you come out against what Governor McDonnell said.
Report comment to moderator
VOLUNTEERS!!!!!!!!!!!! And HRW the state employees go to the chaplain (volunteer) of their CHOICE on their free time if they are dealing with something. They are not using state time, unless that particular policeman has been involved in a shooting or investigating a crime that will require counseling to him. He may then CHOOSE to go to a Christian chaplain for counseling (Chaplain not paid unlike psychiatrist) so there is no government money subsidizing the paid state employee’s right to CHOOSE.
Please notice how I used the word CHOICE AND CHOOSE…..that was done on purpose since liberals are so adamant about their choice to kill babies, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you very much Atlas Shrugged. I had given up.
Report comment to moderator
Folks, some time God give you something an your struggly to understand it and you talk to God about it. An He tells you to do it. So Here go I am going to Obey and send what GOd has laid on my heart.
Report comment to moderator
Ephesians 4 (New King James Version)
“1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, 2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
How can we walk worthy of the calling? How can we act in lowliness, gentleness, longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, or endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace? If we denied the name of Christ. If we view the name of Christ as a name that is offending people, an promote or agree with the idea of not wanting to offend people, we remove the name of Christ.
‘4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. ”
All of these are found in Christ. So why would a Christian support the idea of stopping the use of the name of Christ? Why would a Christian support the idea of the world that say’s Mention the name of Christ is wrong?
Report comment to moderator
7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore He says:
“ When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
Where do we get our measure of Grace from? Who descended and ascended? Christ.
So if Christ has done this; why stop his name from being mention?
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
Who gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers?
Who provides the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry?
Edifying of the body of ?
This will happen until unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the who?
To a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of who?
Christ.
Report comment to moderator
14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
Versus 14 is the danger if we do not put the first 13 versus in our lives. The ending part “every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, ” Removing the name of Christ in order not to offend someone is a tricky of man.
Versus 15 who is the heed?
How can versus 16 happen if we remove the head from our prayers private or publicly?
17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of[ the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. 20 But you have not so learned Christ,
“This I say, therefore, and testify in the” name of who? The rest of versus 17-19 is a warning about not having a mind like the Gentiles and is very much in line with Versus 14.
If you are embracing the actions of the Gentiles (or today’s society) you need to look at versus 20. Because you have not been learning about Christ.
Report comment to moderator
21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. 25 Therefore, putting away lying, “ Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,”[ for we are members of one another. 26 “Be angry, and do not sin”: do not let the sun go down on your wrath, 27 nor give place to the devil. 28 Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need. 29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. 32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.
Versus 22 starts with Christ and versus 32 ends with Christ. If our minds are renewed because of our relationship with Christ. Why should we remove the name of Christ?
If our new man is created according to God in true righteousness and holiness, through our relationship with Christ. Why should we remove the name of Christ?
If we remove the name of Christ from private or public pray, how does this not grieve the Holy Spirit?
How can we put away bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, evil speaking, malice, how can we be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another. If we are removing the one who open the door for us, that is Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Conclusion:
The question that must be asked is removing the name of Christ for private or public pray, right or wrong? Can we call ourselves a Christian if we support the idea of removing the name of Christ for private or public pray? Are we rejecting Christ if we support the removal of His name?
Report comment to moderator
Prayer:
Father, I pray you search our hearts and minds, show us the way on this issue. Forgive us of our sins, Help us to see and reject the trickery of men, helps is not to be toss from one false doctrine to another. Help us not to grieve the Holy Spirit. Father if we have fallen for the trickery of men, if we have fallen for false doctrine, if we have grieve the Holy Spirit forgive us. IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.
Folks I will leave now an let you pounder what God has laid on my heart to write to you. Folks.
I will leave you with this
Ephesians 5:1-2
Walk in Love
1 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.
Report comment to moderator
Roy 126, I responded to this when you posted it on WV today.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, FWIW and speaking only for myself, I find it very hard to read those long blocks of scripture that you post. I’d rather open my Bible to see if it supports your points. But that’s just me.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Blackwell,
You have written a most excellent article. You offer accurate and well needed insight into the ACLU, their agenda and their methods. Thank you!
Report comment to moderator
Juliana (#57):
Every Christian is responsible for judging (evaluating) the difference between right and wrong according to God’s standards. We are definitely called to do this in regard to ourselves and, in some instances, for others as well. Any person, Christian or non-Christian, in a position of authority must evaluate the conduct of those in his charge and render decisions accordingly. This applies to parents, teachers, policemen, judges, inspectors of all sorts, employers, officers in any organization, etc.—the list is almost endless. It also applies to voters, because in this land we are the government. So, all of us, to some degree or another, are required to judge others (by some standard) and render decisions.
So, the question is never one of whether or not we should judge, but how we do it and by what standards.
As Christians we are also called to speak out against evil. The task of determining what is good and what is evil inevitably involves judging (evaluating) conduct according to a set of given standards. There is simply no getting around, or avoiding, the task and the process—that is, if one is to be a faithful Christian.
How do I judge (evaluate) and, when appropriate,speak out in a Christlike manner? That is the hard question, it seems to me. But refusing to judge (evaluate) and refusing to speak are NOT options available to the faithful Christian.
Also, Christians must recognize a favorite tactic of our opposition: the misuse of the biblical admonition not to judge as a means of intimidating us into silence. Our opposition does this all the time. If the Christian does not have an adequate understanding of the biblical admonition and how it is to be applied, he will most likely be intimidated into silence, just as the enemy intends.
Report comment to moderator
You have written a most excellent article. You offer accurate and well needed insight into the ACLU, their agenda and their methods. Thank you!
No he hasn’t. He’s written yet another dishonest far-right broadside against the ACLU based on one case. If you look at their larger record, they take the side of Christians when the Christians are having their civil rights suppressed, and they take the side against Christians when it’s the other way around.
The ACLU iunderstands how to forgive its enemies. Just a year after Jerry Falwell blamed the ACLU (among others) for the 9/11 attacks, they took his side in a case and won.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#132):
I disagree with your assessment of the ACLU. Mr. Blackwell is correct. His indictment of the ACLU is based, not on just one case as you allege, but on a long history of advocating anti-Christian causes and attacking Christian principles and values.
They are smart enough to refrain from attacking Christianity per se, as this would make their agenda way too obvious for all to see. Instead they maintain a facade of neutrality by participating in a few token cases such as the Falwell one you have cited. That case fit the bill for them and they joined it only as a “friend of the court.” They did not initiate the case and their contribution was minor, but it certainly served their purpose as a token to which they could attach their name for the sake of the dishonest charade that they maintain.
In reality, the ACLU attacks key elements of Christian principles and values so that they are anti-Christian in effect, rather than being directly open about it. This summary from the Traditional Values Coalition provides much more information about the ACLU than Mr. Blackwell was able to provide in his article.
The ACLU was founded in 1917 by a group of socialists and Communists whose worldview was diametrically opposed to that of Christianity. A principle part of their strategy was expressed by their founder Roger Baldwin:
Consequently, many well-meaning people were taken in by this subterfuge and gave their names and money to an organization that basically acted as an atheistic, Communist tool for over twenty years. Although many of the specifics of the organization have changed over the years, their original, basic worldview has continued to dominate the ACLU up to the present day—and it is predominantly anti-Christian in effect.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!