Ken Blackwell
Liberals' Establishment of Religion

SHARE THIS:
Share

One of the reasons liberals are so hostile to public expressions of Christianity is because it threatens the monopoly that the religion of liberalism enjoys in the public square. The late Ted Kennedy was more than a leading senator, to liberal supporters. He was a secular saint. His appeal was essentially religious. He made it fairly explicit in his famous concession speech to the Democratic National Convention that re-nominated President Jimmy Carter. Kennedy reduced thousands of liberal delegates to tears with this emotional peroration:

Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE

May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again.

And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:

"I am a part of all that I have met
[Tho] much is taken, much abides
That which we are, we are --
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end.

For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

Not for Ted Kennedy the cool rationalism of his party’s founder, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had famously said “if I had to go to Heaven in a political party, I would not go at all.” For Ted Kennedy and for those weeping delegates, the Democratic Party holds that place that used to be reserved for church and church alone. It’s no wonder that those teary believers—more than 90 percent of whom tell researchers they never go to church—end their search for the meaning of life in political activism.

Analyze Kennedy’s Epistle to the Gentiles and you will see that the concern, the work, the cause, the hope, the dream that is the subject of his panegyric is government. Government giveth and Government taketh away. The only Government worthy of that capital G is one that provides health, education, and welfare. All Americans are invited into the Democratic Church. Only the heretical conservatives are excluded.

Ken Blackwell's Biography
Ken Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and the American Civil Rights Union. He is the co-author of the new bestseller The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, on sale in bookstores everywhere..
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ken Blackwell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Join the Debate
136 Comments So Far
« Previous123456Next »
Ric Wrote: Nov 25, 2009 2:56 PM
"One of the reason some liberals are hostile to public expressions of Christianity" is that they may not be Christian. Why does Blackwell think that people of other religions (Jews or Muslims, for example) ought to show more deference to the beliefs of Christians than Christians show to their beliefs?

Blackwell thinks some liberals think Christianity "threatens the monopoly that the religion of liberalism enjoys in the public square". I doubt any liberals show as much a lack of understanding of what religion is than Blackwell. Liberalism is a faith based belief system, not a religion. Religions, conservatism and liberalism are all faith based belief systems and if liberalism is a religion (which it isn't) then so is conservatism.

Saints are religious figures. Since liberalism in not a religion, Ted Kenney cannot be a liberal saint unless some religion, presumably his own religion, canonized him.

God neither commanded the passage nor the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. God gave mankind free will to pass, not pass, and repeal it and any such action in the US is clearly the doing of the electorate through their representatives.

Blackwell may think that liberals do not take God as seriously as he does but in fact most liberals not only take God as seriously as Blackwell does but, unlike him, take the "establishment of religion" clause of the 1st Amendment seriously as well.
Walter Wrote: Nov 22, 2009 11:46 PM
"He's been told these things by some preacher or ancient writer, and swallowed them whole without one shred of proof. That's called "faith," and we're supposed to regard such gullibility as a virtue."

No, that's not genuine faith as defined by Paul. Blind faith is credulity. That really IS Gullibility. It is not a virtue. Besides, I don't think this guy would know virtue anyway, even if he was faced with it.

Faith as a Christian should be as Paul defined it: (Hebrews 11:1) . . . "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld."

That means, confidence in promises of what is predicted and supposed to take place, based on the performance in the past.

An excellent example of that sort of confidence is involved in the act of turning on a light. When one is moving toward the light switch to turn on the light, one has confidence, genuine, real faith, that, although he has not yet seen the light come on, this time, he certainly will see it when he finally flips the switch. That is a demonstration of faith in something as yet unseen, based on the evidence of past performance. It is the sort of faith a genuine Christian should hold as one's own. And one can have such faith, based on the things already seen being fulfilled down through history. Things such as the rise and fall of the major world powers, recorded in Scripture, in advance.
Walter Wrote: Nov 22, 2009 11:11 PM
I notice in post 130, that the epithet, "Fanatic" is used and no doubt applied to me, and probably all others who share my opinions and dedication.

In the typical liberal mind, "fanatic" means anyone who goes beyond mere identification with a set of Godly principles, and really believes in them and is actually trying to implement them in life to the best of his ability. That person is a "fanatic."

Of course, being imperfect and unable to perfectly measure up to the principles he is trying to live by, when he fails, that automatically makes such people hypocrites to the opposers. So from the stand point of Satan inspired thinking, As dedicated Christians we loose, no matter what the case may be. It's the same satan inspired cynicism that people of faith have been dealing with for thousands of years.

Then we have The Nazarene, the only man who ever lived a perfectly obedient life. The Christ, who "was favorably heard because of his Godly fear." Well, he's just passed off as a "myth" in spite of the witness of hundreds who would have rather died than breach their integrity. And many of them did die in the Roman circuses rather than be disloyal to the Christ, Jesus. Maybe THEY were a "myth" as well, ya think?
Walter Wrote: Nov 22, 2009 6:39 PM
Sorry about the typing and wording mistakes in the last posts. Time is too limited today, to properly critique what I wrote before posting it.
Walter Wrote: Nov 22, 2009 6:35 PM
I came into this understanding, beginning with my personal research in religious history over fifty years ago. Studying strictly on my own, from encyclopedias and other secular works of history, I was driven to the conclusion that, "I this terrible history is representative of the God of Scripture, who needs it?" And was for a while, an agnostic. My temples were such things as the mountains, forests, the great canyons and other wonders of nature.

Brain-washing is done through sensory deprivation, deprivation of choices choices. It is not education.

Education teaches one how to think, and encourages research and discussion.

Propaganda TELL one what to think, and allows for NO research and discussion.

The personal research that I did years ago generated many questions with no positive answers. The international Christian Brotherhood with which I began to associate provided positive, reasonable and logical answers to every question about spiritual matters that had been generated. Answers I chose to accept, because there exists no reasonable, acceptable alternative that has ever been shown to me.

One would have to either be completely stupid, or have very questionable motives, to call that "brain-washing."
Walter Wrote: Nov 22, 2009 6:31 PM
If justice, tempered with mercy is to be done' yes! We do need the final confrontation!

If He would have "settled matters" a long time ago, we would never have been born and given a chance to survive' one way or the other, into the promised restored paradise that the earth should become.

And, No, I could never will subscribe to the squalid beliefs and practices of the moslem world.

The International Christian brotherhood to which I do subscribe lives in over 230 nations and islands of the sea. It is not now engaged in any violent practices, and never will be. We believe, as did the charter members of the first Christian congregation, that we are covered by the words of Isaiah 2:4, which apply to the true international brotherhood of Christians:
" . . .And he will certainly render judgment among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore."

David Wrote: Nov 22, 2009 3:52 PM

The belief in Satan is always a convenient way to explain the prejudice and violence that ALWAYS aocompany fanatical belief in God.

Walter says Satan puts up "a smoke-screen to cause obstruction and confusion as to the real truth about spiritual matters." Now, how in the world could he possibly know such a thing?

The answer is, he doesn't! He's been told these things by some preacher or ancient writer, and swallowed them whole without one shred of proof. That's called "faith," and we're supposed to regard such gullibility as a virtue.

Don't you think if God and Satan really existed, God could have won the battle of good against evil a long time ago? Must he wait for a final confrontation?
David Wrote: Nov 22, 2009 3:41 PM

Walter, you are so full of it! You offer these tortured explanations for every Jewish and Christian belief, based on your conviction that the writings of thousands of years ago represent absolute truth that is relevant for today. Not to mention having to rely on totally made-up theology to explain the things that don't make sense.

You might as well add the Koran to your list of books that you accept as God's will, and then you could believe that the Islamic martyrs will enjoy 72 virgins in Heaven. (I wonder what the female suicide bombers get?)

Call that belief silly if you want, but your beliefs are every bit as ridiculous. Trying to explain why God requires bloodshed in order to forgive sin is just one of the more insane examples of religious brainwashing.
Walter Wrote: Nov 21, 2009 9:04 PM
All this has nothing whatever to do with "pagan" religion. In pagan mythology, there are many many counterfeits of the real thing, provided by Satan for the purpose of a smoke-screen to cause obstruction and confusion as to the real truth about spiritual matters. For example, who would be the "Seed of the woman" spoken of by God to the first Adam, which Seed proved to be Jesus of Nazareth. Osiris was considered to be the "Seed" by the Egyptians. The Assyrian, Greek, Roman and Persian mythologies had their counterfeits as well.

Today's religious world also has it's counterfeits. The biggest one of all is what was dredged from the religious sewers of ancient Babylon, dressed up in a "Christian" facade in fourth and fifth century, to try and justify it. Then it was dragged into the church in the fifth century by phony "Christian church fathers," and came to be called one of the central doctrines of the Church. That apostate doctrine was codified in the so called Athenasian Creed. Commonly called, the trinity, and totally misrepresenting the relationship between the Father and Son. An insult to God, the Father, and an embarrassment to Jesus, the Son.
Walter Wrote: Nov 21, 2009 8:58 PM
That volunteer, God's "only begotten son," the "First Born of all Creation," willingly submitted to having his life force transferred from the spirit realm to the womb of a young, faithful and virgin Jewish woman by means of God's Holy Spirit, to be born as a man here on the earth. A true man, born of a woman, but with God as his Father, like the first Adam, thereby avoiding the stain of sin and imperfection that would come from the offspring of first father Adam.

Now, the problem question is, will this Second Adam remain obedient to God, doing His will unto death, or would he be like the First Adam, trading off his right to life by doing what ever seemed nice at the moment?

By remaining faithfully obedient to death, he became qualified to replace the first Adam as an adoptive father of all mankind. A replacement father to all who would willingly follow Jesus' example of obedience to his Creator God and Father.

By dying an unjustified death, the value of his perfect, sinless human life blood provided the ransom needed to release all obedient mankind from the curse of the First Adam.

That sacrifice he made for us was what was pictured by the slaughter of the lamb during Passover, and by the sacrifices on the temple alter.

Those animals were never tortured, you bonehead. They were slaughtered in as merciful a way as possible, and used for food, shared by the temple priesthood. That's why they were called "Communion Sacrifices." The fatty pieces are what were burned on the alter, on which the blood of the sacrifice was poured out, to provide a prophetic picture of the ultimate sacrifice provided by the shed blood of the perfect Lamb of God, Jesus Christ.

Kenyatta Wrote: Nov 21, 2009 7:09 PM
"But as it is written,eye has not seen,nor ear heard,neither have entered into the heart of man,the things which God has prepared for them that love him.But God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit:for the Spirit searches all things,yes,the deep things of God.For what man knows the things of a man,save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knows no man,but the Spirit of God.Now we have received,not the spirit of the world,but the Spirit which is of God;that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak,not in the words which man's wisdom teaches,but which the Holy Spirit teaches;comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned". And that, dear people, is why you must be born again. To many people make the mistake of thinking that they can figure God out based upon the power of their intellect,fugeddaboutit!To many people make the mistake of thinking that they possess an independent thought process. This is not true,for if we did possess an independent thought process we would be gods ourselves. No my friends,what you have is on independent choice and the choice you make determines what your thought process will be. One of the most,if not the most important questions, is whether you can afford to be wrong about your relationship with God? For if one is wrong ,one will be wrong for an eternity."For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodiness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because what may be known of God is manifest in them;for God has shown it unto them.For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;so that they are without excuse".
Walter Wrote: Nov 21, 2009 7:08 PM
God:
"You have two options.
1. Obey this one rule which places no hardship on you what-so-ever, and live on, indefinitely.
2, Disobey that simple rule, and go back to the ground from which you came, forever into oblivion."

First parents: "OK."

Satan:
"He's a self serving liar. He knows you won't die. Go ahead and take it. It's really good for you."

First parents: "OK."

So they took what was not theirs to take as an act of rebellion in company with Satan. They have now "sinned" (deliberately corrupted themselves)and are now doomed.

As a result, before they died, their offspring were born imperfect. They inherited imperfection from their dad. They are dying sinners, do to no fault of their own.

Should God say:
Aw, I'm sorry! I didn't mean it. He is right! I was wrong! You can have anything you want, and determine for your own selves what is right and what is wrong!"

That's no doubt what he would do if he had the weak character and sense of justice of a lot of liberals.

For justice to be done in behalf of the inheritors; for them to be rescued from the trap of sin and death not of their own making, A Ransom needed to be provided.

It was provided by a volunteer, someone who could become a second perfect man, A man equal in every way to the first Adam, the "Second Adam," Jesus Christ.

Later. I have other obligations.
David Wrote: Nov 21, 2009 3:54 AM

Caleb, what you're saying is that the god you believe in really IS a bloodthirsty god. If not, who ELSE decided that blood had to be shed to atone for sinfulness?

You wrote, "God enacted a system of substitution via the sacrifice of animals in order for His people to avoid punishment for their sins." If he's so all-powerful, couldn't he just forgive the sinners without torturing some poor animal?

It seems to me the whole concept of Christ's death is just an extension of a pagan practice, and efforts to explain why it was necessary are just more religious mumbo-jumbo.
RCMinor Wrote: Nov 20, 2009 10:47 AM
"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness...

...that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best."

Hey lefties, any idea which Biblebeating zealot wrote that?

Walter Wrote: Nov 20, 2009 1:49 AM
The very short second Psalm is an End Time Messianic prophesy, directed at the high officials and world rulers of all the nations living during the Time of the End.

The Psalmist/writer begins:

2 Why have the nations been in tumult And the national groups themselves kept muttering an empty thing?  2 The kings of earth take their stand And high officials themselves have massed together as one Against Jehovah and against his anointed one,  3 [Saying:] “Let us tear their bands apart And cast their cords away from us!”  (A thorough-going rebellious attitude) 4 The very One sitting in the heavens will laugh; Jehovah himself will hold them in derision.  5 At that time he will speak to them in his anger And in his hot displeasure he will disturb them,  6 [Saying:] “I, even I, have installed my king Upon Zion, my holy mountain.”  

Then the true Messiah speaks:
7 "Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah; He has said to me: 'You are my son; I, today, I have become your father.  8 Ask of me, that I may give nations as your inheritance And the ends of the earth as your own possession.  9 You will break them with an iron scepter, As though a potter’s vessel you will dash them to pieces.'"

The Psalmist comes back with further words: 10 "And now, O kings, exercise insight; Let yourselves be corrected, O judges of the earth. 11 Serve Jehovah with fear And be joyful with trembling. 12 Kiss the son, that He may not become incensed And YOU may not perish [from] the way, For his anger flares up easily. Happy are all those taking refuge in him."
Walter Wrote: Nov 20, 2009 1:29 AM

What then?
The outcome of the warnings of lethal consequences given to world-wide political officials contained in the second Psalm, will be implemented. The eventual final fulfillment of what we were instructed to daily request, as recorded in Matthew 6:9&10. The source of the so-called "Lord's Prayer."

That fulfillment which was forecast in the book of Daniel chapter 2, particularly verse 44.

We would all be much happier, I think, eventually fulfilling the mandated purpose laid out for mankind in the creation account of Genesis.

Now, if you don't like the sound of this, then be careful what you pray for. You might just get it!

In short, we will all eventually serve the purpose of the Intelligent Designer. Happily, willingly, or not.

If happily, we will have a life of ongoing security and contentment. Everything needed for our happiness and prosperity, provided by The One who knows how we are designed, and exactly what we need. (And that One ain't the big B.O., or any other earth-bound politician.)

If we are unwilling to serve Him who owns us, we will still serve Him anyway, by going back to the dust as fertilizer for His trees.
Walter Wrote: Nov 20, 2009 1:26 AM
As important as mankind's salvation is, there are more important universal issues.

Nominal Christians have mindlessly repeated the so-called Lord's Prayer for nearly two thousand years. I say, mindlessly, because the vast majority have not an inkling what it is they are asking for in Matthew 6:9 and 10.

Sovereignty is the issue. The honesty, the qualifications and right of the Designing Intellect to rule the earth and all on it. The most important issues. Man's salvation from the effects of sin is down the line of priorities from that.

The issue is one of sovereignty. The right to rule. Who is qualified to set the rules, and who is not!

Since mankind decided that they knew better than their Creator and Life Giver what was good and what was bad for themselves, His qualifications to rule were brought into question. His sovereignty was in effect rejected. His power was not questioned. Just His right to rule and His honesty. They had enough cunning to avoid that one.

So to prove one way or the other; "Are we qualified to rule ourselves and the planet upon which we live, or, if we are to have life, do we really need to be subject to the rule of the Intelligent Designer?

We are, for the most part, abandoned to our own devices to prove once and for all time whether we humans are qualified to exercise sovereignty over the world of mankind, or whether we really would be better off ruled by the Kingdom of God that the world of Christendom mindlessly prays for every day, as per the Lord's Prayer. Since the rule of God was rejected, and replaced by man's rule over himself, the guarantees of safety, prosperity and security that accompany God's rule were removed with it. Mankind is truly on it's own, subjected to time and unforeseen circumstances (unintended consequences)that bring us our many tragedies. But this cosmic court case and the evidence piling up will not continue for ever.
Caleb Wrote: Nov 20, 2009 12:01 AM
The reasoning is as follows. The wages (punishment) of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Since all have sinned (Romans 3:23), none of us are without sin (except for Christ). Under the Old Testament system, God enacted a system of substitution via the sacrifice of animals in order for His people to avoid punishment for their sins. Under His law, there is no forgiveness for sins without the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22). Effectively, the blood of the animals was a substitute for the blood of the people. Ultimately though, no amount of unblemished lambs is going to completely cover the stain of sin.

The plan of God for the redemption of mankind (not all mankind, but those whom He chose to save - Romans 8:28-30) was that Christ (God incarnate) would be the perfect sacrifice. You see, God could have sent everyone to Hell as punishment for their sins, and everything would be hunky-dory (God’s desire for justice would be fulfilled), but He mercifully planned it differently (since He is also a being of mercy). Instead of everyone paying the penalty for their sins, one man (the God-Man Jesus Christ) would be able to do so and at one time for all sins ever committed or that would be committed. You see, since He was perfect, he was also the perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 9: er…all of Hebrews 9).

He still lives because God (the Father) resurrected Him (1 Corinthians 15:3-19).

2 Corinthians 5:21 says “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

I hope it helps,
Caleb
Chuck Wrote: Nov 19, 2009 9:20 PM
"It seems to me the crusifixion, if it ever really happened (Roman history doesn't record it)"

I guess he's never heard of Tacitus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
Chuck Wrote: Nov 19, 2009 9:06 PM
Don't be goofy. The Constitution does not conflict with God's law.
Lyle Wrote: Nov 19, 2009 8:55 PM
Sorry, but there are a lot of religious crazies out there who want a Theocracy government. They would prefer living under their God's laws other than the U.S. Constitution. This is very Anti-American and should be treated seriously. Why aren't you speaking against those conservative Christians who promote praying from Palms 109.8? This is not American, but dangerous business.
Chuck Wrote: Nov 19, 2009 8:53 PM
"I'm as conservative as they come, but not on this issue."

Another liar posing as a "conservative".

David, tell me again what it is, exactly, that makes you a "Conservative"?
Sarah Wrote: Nov 19, 2009 8:28 PM
It would appear that certain readers are a mite touchy when their articles of faith in liberalism are identified this way. Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, no doubt, would also make them sweat. I recommend it to anyone wondering where we've seen this before.
David Wrote: Nov 19, 2009 8:26 PM

Joycey, you wrote, "It is all about Christ's death on the cross for you. A sacrifice, like lambs and goats in the temple, but new and never again the same because God Himself gave His only begotten Son as the sacrice. For your sins. For my sins."

I've never quite understood the reasoning behind either the sacrificing of animals or the death of Jesus. Is this a bloodthirsty god you worship?

Presumably we no longer have to do animal sacrifices because Jesus died for us, but how does that work exactly? How did his death absolve me of my sins? And if he still lives and is worshipped, then he didn't really die, did he?

It seems to me the crusifixion, if it ever really happened (Roman history doesn't record it) was just an extension of a pagan practice that makes no sense.

Of course, even his death didn't save you and me, it must have saved a lot of sheep and goats.
David Wrote: Nov 19, 2009 8:05 PM

Walter, the light-switch analogy has nothing to do with religious faith, because the phenomenon has been observed time and again. One can be reasonably assured the light will come on, just as we can be pretty certain the sun will come up.

Having faith in an afterlife or the existence of God is quite another thing, because we've never observed these before -- you're taking the word of the prophets who had no more proof than we do.

And, speaking of that, Joycey, if God really spoke to Abraham, why do you say it took him a long time to trust God? It seems to me that a booming voice from the sky, or from a burning bush or wherever it came from, would be proof enough for most people.

But we don't have that. We're expected to believe something unprovable and to consider it a virtue to be so gullible. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Finally, Wally, you say that some things can only be understood in the context of the time period. I agree. So why do people take so seriously the writings of thousands of years ago, when the wisest of men knew less about the world than the average eighth-grader of today?

The cafeteria-style Christians choose what to take seriously and try to explain away the rest. They discount most of the prohibitions in Leviticus but are absolutely sure that lying with man "as with a woman" is the one abomination that should be taken seriously.

NONE of it should be taken seriously. True morality is not something handed down in a book written by people who kept slaves, abused lepers and subjugated women. It is determined by our need to live together in harmony, treat each other as equals, and be kind to other people and even lesser animals.

I am insulted by those who say I have to believe in magic in order to have a moral compass -- or that I'm only a disbeliever because I want to live in sin. What hogwash!
« Previous123456Next »