At first I also thought how is this different than attending a baby shower of an unwed mother? (Something I would never give a second thought to). As others have stated, Jesus congregated among those that were denied approval and love. I so get that, and that is why I love Him so. The grace and love that is poured out to all of us so freely. But Jesus also overturned tables in the temple, when his house of prayer was being misused.

He loves people at no expense. But I do not want to confuse that with accepting and celebrating actions that go against His word. I believe His word is truth and He combined LOVE and TRUTH to touch lives and bring hope. One without the other would not have been true to His character. Relying on my own thoughts and opinions, I can justify about anything. But I know as a follower, not just a believer, it is God’s word and His spirit that should be my ultimate guide.

I was lead right away in my scripture reading to Chronicles 28. David tells his son Solomon: “acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the Lord searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever. Consider now, for the Lord has chosen you to build a temple as a sanctuary. Be strong and do the work.”

Wow! I had peace knowing that God would search my heart and know that my greatest desire was not to worry how I represented myself in all of this, but how I represented Him. I also knew I was setting the precedence for my son who will be faced with difficult situations like this and many others in his lifetime.

I have always told my children not to be fearful to stand up for what they believe. Just as I have to decide through prayer and seeking truth in scripture, they too will have to prayerfully decide where to draw the line. Not everything is black and white. Although I told my oldest son, neither decision would make me happy, I believe He will give me peace enough, and strength to do what He desires of me.

I will freely admit that I am not an expert on the intricacies of the government. My point was not to proclaim an overly-literal, wooden interpretation of the term “Congress” but rather to show that the point of the amendment was to prevent any laws or ordinances from being put in place by the government that would endorse (or prevent) the free exercise of faith by citizens.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the President does not have the authority to make any order or proclimation that would effectively establish or prohibit religious practice. So, even if he were to make an Executive Order that Americans should all be Jewish, for example, the order would not be backed with authority as the Executive Branch of government, as you point out, carries out the law but does not establish law.

We saw an example of such with the health care bill when the President gave an EO stating that public funds should not be used for abortions, yet that EO was completely impotent.

Even without the 14th amendment (though I understand the need to articulate the fact) I would have assumed the extension of the First Amendment as you describe.

My problem is with the idea that people will cite violation of the First Amendment in cases such as I described here or for a Christian recording artist performing on a military base and other such things.

The fact is, although (as you point out) in this case the suit was dropped, continued law suits citing First Amendment violations that really aren’t begin to affect perception of what the First Amendment is and is not. It also begins to affect the way such things will be interpreted in the future…particularly by people who will one day be in positions to ajudicate on such matters.

The children today who hear such false representations regarding what the First Amendment is about are going to one day be United States Supreme Court Justices who will rule on these matters after having been indoctrinated with a false understanding of how this applies. Granted, these children will have to go through rigorous education and training on the matter of such interpretation, but I think it naive to think that certain presuppositions and biases won’t slowly creep their way in.

There tends to be, in such situations, a great deal of noise about a violation of the First Amendment and people crying “Separation of Church and State!” very loudly and then, later, quietly and/or privately conceding that the accusations were false.

It seems somewhat similar to the what happens when a major news publication posts a front page article making some claim against a person or group and then, weeks later on page 17, they post a tiny, obscure retraction.

Ok, I can see that I’m going into a major digression, here. Suffice to say, the establishment of a religion is quite distinct from things such as private citizens gathering to pray in front of a public school, a student voicing their faith while addressing the student body, a faith-based recording artist performing at a military base, a student desiring to sing a faith-based song during a school talent show or a small group of people gathering to pray on the steps of the United States Supreme Court (yes, this actually happened…a group doing just that was told by a police officer that they were not allowed to do that).

That’s the main point I was trying to make with this.

Thanks for your feedback and for giving some good information on how our government works in this area.

Grace, love and peace.

First, Congress itself cannot make any law whatsoever without the approval of the President, except in the instance of overriding a President’s veto, so to read the language as simplistically and literally as you suggest would actually do violence to the intent of the Amendment. As laws in the ordinary course are “made” by actions by both Congress and the Executive, the establishment clause is reasonably understood to constrain both branches of government. By the literal reading you suggest, it would, I suppose, only stop Congress from overriding a veto to make a law establishing a religion–a manifestly silly result.

Second, as the Constitution designs the Executive to carry out laws that have been passed by Congress and does not give the Executive any independent power to establish religion, the establishment clause is reasonably understood to constrain the Executive in its carrying out of laws that Congress passed. That is the way James Madison understood the clause; in his Detached Memoranda, he explained that “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts” are not consistent with it. If the clause were interpreted to leave the Executive free, by proclamation or some such, to establish a religion, what really would be the point of the clause? No, such an interpretation would enable the Executive to eviscerate the purpose of the clause.

With respect to application of the establishment clause’s constraints to states and their political subdivisions, courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process, and equal protection of the laws to effectively extend the First Amendment’s guarantees vis a vis the federal government to the states and their subdivisions–hence the law does reach the city councils and public school teachers. (While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments, e.g., the 14th, could extend the First Amendment’s constraints to state and local governments.)

When discussing separation of church and state, it is important to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical. The school mentioned in your post stumbled at first, but in the end seemed to get the distinction.

Glad you enjoyed the post. I will certainly work on putting together a “series” of sorts to delve into some of the various types of evidence and what we have, what we don’t have and discussing some of the common misinformation that is prevalent today.

I agree completely with what you’re saying. When it comes to many of the politically/religiously charged controversies such as abortion, we should avoid trying to persuade others with faith-based arguments.

To me, there are a couple of options that would be better. One is what I’ve laid out here by showing using science and medicine that abortion is no different than murder which is already an agreed-upon standard.

The other method, as you point out, is to lead people to Christ which will lead them to the same conclusions with regards to many of the moral situations that there is often so much debate and controversy over.

I’ve had conversations many times with others about my feeling that we cannot hold non-Christians accountable to the teachings of the Bible since they do not accept the Bible as authoritative. Instead, we should bring them to Christ, after which they likely WILL accept scripture as authoritative and effect those changes in world-view.

Thanks for the input!