It is a fact. It is not a question of right or wrong.
You can argue that it is wrong, but they founded it that way for a reason.
You may not like it now, but I would suggest that you consider the alternatives that exist elsewhere in the world. While a government promoting a "Christian" perspective may not be your cup of tea, you are at least free to question the government.
It may not be your ideal, but it beats a radical muslim state that uses Shariya law and beheads its citizens. It also beats a dictatorship or a state such as China which can do many things to you economically or politically.
My point was that you need to have a historical perspective and that perhaps while you might not like what they are doing, considering the other options that exist in the world, perhaps it is a system that at least allows the debate to exist in the first place.
People who claim to be followers of Christ are simply that. People.
The government is choosing (because of the current administration) to do something that they feel is in the best interests of the country. While you may not agree, you at least have that option.
The bible has a great example of someone who defied Governmental decree over religion because he choose to follow his god. Daniel. Perhaps that may not be a good example but it does illustrate that a government can try to enforce something and God (whether you believe in him or not) expects us to exhert our own "faith" muscles regardless of what a "government" says.
Just saying.
Cr.
To me, it is very much a question of right and wrong. As the constitution was amended and laws changed because slavery was realized to be wrong, though not illegal.
I very much know that this is a small infraction compared to the atrocities of other governments, but that's not really part of this debate. Perspective, yes, but part of the question at hand, no.
I don't contribute all the successes of the American government on its argued Christian foundings. That is giving way too much credit to
any role Christianity may have played.
And I do understand the need for an historical perspective on these types of things, but that perspective includes many instances where the traditions of the government were perceived to be wrong morally by the people and measures were taken to change it-- which is what my side of the debate is arguing to do. It is a fine line between honoring the wisdom of those before us and realizing antiquated beliefs about the world and humanity's role in it. That is what debates like this are about- working on defining that line, and is what we should be doing.
I don't understand why people keep bringing up examples of people winning out in the right to practice their religion despite governmental oppression. That's not what this supposed situation is about. Its about the government enforcing a religion on the people, not the other way around. (Well, in a way, its about people like me winning the right to practice their non-religion despite governmental oppression, I suppose, but that's a stretch).
Believe me, I totally understand the privileges I have by living in this country, and am grateful. But I also understand my duty as a citizen to intellectually challenge the government when I perceive an infraction.
t:
