AboutMrs. Priscilla Lyons Expertise I have time for you. The Bible has been my guiding light for most of the 56 years of my life. My missionary parents in Brazil kindled a love for God`s Word by their example and their love for truth. The Lord has blessed my husband and me with responsible, independent children who love and serve the Lord and are our best friends. I would enjoy discussing any subject or problem from a Biblical perspective. I know the dangers of government entitlement mentality, the dangers of homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, gun restrictions, pacifism and environmental extremism.
Experience My husband and I are active in local Republican politics and I've served on a Right to Life PAC.
What if you went to Church next Sunday and found a copy of the U.S. constitution and the chief written doctrines of all the other major religious traditions attached to your prayer book? Much to your surprise, your minister lets you know that he/she has no longer any say in the matter, it is now a court order. How would that make you feel? I personally would be a little offended by that action, as would most of you.
Yet, you will come and argue for the other side of that same coin. You maintain that there is not enough church in the state. You believe the chief written doctrine of the Bible should legally be allowed to be placed in the public square. What is the logic behind such a belief? You maintain that what our society needs today are good moral values (or prescriptions). Furthermore, a good moral prescription can be found right here smack dab in the Old Testament version of the Bible.
Let’s examine your argument a little bit further for a moment. On the surface, it sounds harmless. After all, society I believe as you that should do anything that will improve its moral and ethical fabric. Maybe a good moral prescription would get more people to observe our laws. Personally, I have no problem with the idea under certain conditions. However, the notion begs closer examination. “Why?”…. because I submit it is kind of like putting “God in a Box.” The underlying supposition is this: one spiritual tradition whether it is Christian, Jewish (or otherwise biblically based) contains the only absolute and ultimate authority to transform people into ethical human beings.
Come on, as a moral and ethical human being yourself, you really don’t need anyone outside your faith telling you that there has be more politics in God? Admittedly, this is where it does get a little antagonistic for most. There are many people out their happy to define what is spiritual, moral, and ethical for you. You will find them on every street corner. They are all over the place, whether they are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, ect.,( the list goes on and on). These people (just like you) are happy to define what is moral for us, as long as you stay within the “boxed” tenants of your own religious traditions.
We are a democratic state and not a church state. This principle is what distinguishes us between many of the Asian and Arabic cultures. Other religious traditions, like the non-radical elements of the Muslim faith, and the Buddhists sacred writings also embrace good moral conduct as their major tenants. If placing excerpts of the Old Testament of the Bible (or new for that matter) is the cure to all of our problems why just stop there? Why shouldn’t we have the Buddhist Four Noble Truths and key sections of the Holy Koran as well?
Frankly, I believe that there just some things best left for the public square and not for our places of worship. Can’t we both just agree on that? But if you agree with me on that issue, it follows that both sides of the coin should hold true.
The founding fathers of this country thought about these ideas carefully. They were free masons, not just Christians (any doubt about that please look it up on your own). Thomas Jefferson was the first official conceiver of the U.S. constitution and he had liberal and progressive viewpoints about life. His outlook was not necessarily confined to the tradition of Christianity; his spiritual perspective was broadly-based and largely ecumenical. As a matter of fact, history pointed out he even dabbled in the metaphysical perspective of life. Benjamin Franklin held similar views. Our nation’s founding fathers were truly brilliant people and they were keenly aware of the kind of problems that ensued as a result of religious and ideological differences of opinion. Many religious wars were incited and fought in Europe. This was the “Age of Enlightenment.” We were coming out of old Europe emerging from the medieval dark ages. So our founding fathers concluded about the time of the founding of our nation, this was not to be for this new experimental government (called America). They wanted to leave the “Justice Sundays” for Europe, and let them burn their witches in Salem, Massachusetts..
The first continental congress and drafting of the constitution was meant to set a precedent in this experimental government. All spiritual and religious traditions were invited and tolerated. To make a claim that our founding fathers were only “Christian” in their perspective is only self-serving and simply not accurate. It tries to put “God in a box.” To put it bluntly our founding fathers understood the true complexities that came with differences of religious opinion. How did they combat this? They came up with a doctrine that separated the Church from the State in our nation’s charter. Again, if you have any doubt about this, ask any constitutional lawyer that is worth their salt.
For now, the way that I demonstrate my compassion toward you is being tolerant of you and your spiritual beliefs from the beginning. I try to make my life a demonstrative of what good ethical behavior is. Yes, and that even means not making you insert copies of the four Noble Truths (Buddhist doctrine) in your church prayer book.
The purpose our founding fathers had in mind at the first continental congress in Philadelphia was to create a nation were no one spiritual tradition had an advantage over another. As for myself, I would without exception respect your deeply held spiritual beliefs. If the Ten Commandments and a nativity scene are allowed in the public square, so should engraved stone copies of the Four Noble truths. When I go to a place of worship on Sunday, it means, I don’t to have to leave my brains in the trunk of my car.
The Constitution was not meant to be a document up for amendment every year subject to the political winds of the moment. It has sanctity of it own, and many believe a venue of its own. The founding fathers respected your religious tradition enough to allow you make those decisions for yourself.
Give your best shot on this one, and don't provide an spritual-based anti-intellectual answer to me please. My pastor once told to me during his sermon: "When we go to church we don't leave our brains in the trunk of our car."
ANSWER: Dear John,
I defend your right to disagree with me and to vote your morals, but please give Christians the right to vote their morals also.
The "state" is the government--We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If we want to enjoy the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, according to our Declaration of Independence, we best not shut Him out of our public life. It would be better to allow Christians to fulfill their citizenship according to Biblical principles, even if we ourselves don't feel that way and even if we vote differently. We are a Republic, with Representative Government by majority rule, so if you want engraved stone copies of the Four Noble truths along with the Ten Commandments or a Nativity scene, then vote for a Representative who wants what you do, or run for office yourself and get the most votes to win the election.
The First Amendment only limits LAWS being passed that establish religion. It does not limit people's religion or morals from influencing laws. All laws are the moral opinion of the majority voting for the laws. Even speeding laws reflect the moral or religious opinion that it is GOOD to limit speed because human life is valuable and too easily sacrificed when there are no limits on speed. The First Amendment states, "CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" Individuals and our Representatives in government should have free exercise of their religion, even if I don't like their religion, even if I tune them out and wait patiently for my turn to speak or to vote them out of office.
True Christianity cannot be forced by law anyway, nor can it be forced by the sword. It has to be an individual acceptance of our Creator as Lord and Savior from our sins by His perfect payment. I understand you will allow me the freedom to share this, even as I give you the freedom to reject it, and vice-versa. I appreciate my freedom to disagree with you, and thank you for asking for my response even though neither of us are likely to change our minds.
Sincerely,
Priscilla
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: In this nations 250 year history I yet to hear of a case where church doors were padlocked by the state over political or religious principle (or for that matter liberals doing the same). I think your fears are largely preemptive and based upon “perception” rather than “fact.”
In the meantime, I see that you are comfortable using a secular political forum to postulate your social and political views citing the certain amendments of the constitution as your protection. Once again let me make it clear, I maintain no issue with that.
However, let me draw a line in the sand here and now. While I welcome your religious and political views and your right to say them, my views are just as devoutly held. I implore you not to put a padlock on my Buddhist temple or for that matter a padlock on my mind. I am told one of the fast growing traditions now in this country is Buddhism. Albeit good or bad, the social and religious landscape is really starting to change in this country. People are not as white as they once were and they are not as Christian as they once were…. “Deal with it”
If you go back to my original question, I did in fact separate church from state, consistent with your cited excerpts of the U.S. constitution. Furthermore, I would hope you afford me this same gallantry while the landscape of this country really begins to change. That should make you even more secure in your religious tradition or less secure depending upon your personal conviction. In the meantime, I feel the thrust of my question still remains unanswered.
Never-the-less, you aree correct, no minds have been changed here.
Answer Dear John,
Our First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not limited to the four walls of my church or yours. It does not separate a Buddhist from being a Buddhist as he marks his election ballot, or from his votes as a "state" representative (if he garners the votes to win an election), as well being a Buddhist in his temple. The "state" is people who do not lose their free exercise of religion before or after they win an election.
The "state" people award funds to public functions according to their belief system perception of what is best for the majority. If they are less than ethical, they may vote to line their own pockets. Atheists, or others who don't consider a Creator Who sees all, and to Whom they will ultimately be accountable, may have a harder time resisting the pressure to line their own pockets while in power.
I agree with you that Buddhists who become our representatives in government have the same right to live their convictions as do atheists or Christians who become our representatives in government. I agree with you that Buddhists have the same right to share their beliefs as I do, and the same right to vote or "to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Let's work together to stop Congress from making laws to stop us from living our convictions outside the church walls.
Priscilla
