That Which is Caesar's

Hold on to your hats, kiddos.  I'm charging headlong into the very thick of the topics the world specifically tells you not to talk about in public.  I can't find a more public place than the Internet, so here we go.

Because the things I'm talking about today are such extremely controversial issues that have such strong opinions attached to them, I'm going to teach you a remarkable thing That will serve you well not only today, but in all situations whether you agree or disagree.  I call it suspended disbelief.  It's very simple.  You throw your opinions on the subject out the window and start from scratch.  You can then actually listen to what that person is saying and judge their point of view for its actual validity.

Get it?  If not, email me at veebjamn@yahoo.com BEFORE reading the rest of this post.  Otherwise you aren't going to be able to read this thing objectively.  If you have the concept of suspended disbelief down, then let's mount up and charge in full speed.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the following in a letter to Danbury Baptists Association in 1802.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Basically, Jefferson didn't want the government interfering with religion or the church interfering with politics.  To set a basis, the King of England has long been the head of the Church of England.  Many people have had problems with this and Jefferson was not the first to suggest the importance of this separation.

Can you blame them?  If the government is controlling the church, it can use the church to promote whatever propaganda it wants.  On the other hand, look at some marvelous examples of when the church controls the government.  Let me throw some highlights out at you:

• The Inquisition
• The Crusades
• The fact that the Sun revolved around the Earth for CENTURIES!!!

There HAS to be a separation.  I'm sorry to tell you that Jesus even agreed (at least to an extent).

"He said to them, 'Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.'"  Luke 20:25 (NIV)

Ok, I'll admit, he was talking about taxes, but there is more evidence than just that.

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.  The authorities that exist have been established by God."  Romans 13:1

So I'm not without some biblical basis for my arguments (which I'm sorry to tell you, you still haven't actually gotten to).

The idea of the separation of church and state was one of the founding principles of our government.  So much so, that it was part of the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Ok, now that I have sufficiently built a platform that puts me as far out of reach as I can possibly get . . . public schools promoting prayer is wrong.

Since public schools are funded by the government, they have no right to impose any sort of religion on the students therein.  Just imagine if there was a prayer to Allah promoted in the school you are sending you kids to.  Imagine if the teachers told your student there is no such thing as God.  You wouldn't much like it, but it is essentially the same thing you are doing to non-Christian students.

This same argument applies to the Pledge of Allegiance.  Many people have fought over whether or not "under God" should be in the Pledge.  My opinions against the Pledge of Allegiance on principle aside (I'll talk about that some other time), the phrase "under God" is not constitutionally sound.

Now, before you throw in the argument that it has always been there and no one has ever had a problem with it before recently, I'm gonna throw some history at you.  The Pledge of Allegiance was first written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy.  It was slowly altered through time.  It did not include the words "under God" until 1954.  Did you hear that?  It did not include the words "under God" until 1954!!!  That means the words have only been there for less than half of the Pledge's existence.  I'm sorry to tell you, it hasn't "always been there".

Now that I've thrown out the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer in schools, I'm gonna go for the big kill.  Gay's should be allowed to marry.

Whatever your view on homosexuality may be, I have never heard an argument against gay marriage that wasn't religiously based.  Since the church should not control the government, that is not a reasonable basis for forbidding gay marriage by the state.

I'm sorry to say, I'm gonna go one step further.  You don't really have a religious basis for arguing against gay marriage either.  Whatever people may tell you, marriage is a human invention.

To illustrate, let me throw some questions out here:

• Were Adam and Eve married?
• If your answer to the above was yes, who performed the ceremony?
• If your answer to the above was God, can't he still do that?
• If your answer to the above was "of course!  God can do anything!", do you have to be married in some schnazzy ceremony?  (e.g. Common-Law Marriage)
• If your answer to the above was no (as it should have been), what is marriage?

Now that I have sufficiently shaken the foundations of the traditional family by throwing out the huge overly promoted wedding ceremony, I'm going to define marriage for you:  two people committing to spend their lives with each other.  With this definition, gays are already getting married.  Why can't they have government benefits for it?

My point is very simple.  You wouldn't like the government imposing on the church, thus the church should not impose on the government lest the two unintentionally merge to become a new deadly supermonster that will ultimately condemn us all to both death AND Hell for one thing or another.

Is THAT what you really want?