Soap Box: The First Amendment

       There is a serious misunderstanding over the first amendment in our country right now. I was reading the news today and came across this article (linked below). It’s not the first time I’ve read about this kind of thing happening, and I’m guessing it won’t be the last. But is this really a matter for the ACLU to pursue? Is this really a violation of the First Amendment – the “Separation of Church and State?” Go ahead and read the article…

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/07/aclu-threatens-lawsuit-nc-town-does-remove-christian-flag-war-memorial/

The Logical Argument:


       It is incredibly telling that the ACLU’s and the protesting local citizens’ only solution to this disastrous problem was to take down the Christian flag. After all, we can’t “show favoritism” for one religion over another,” right? That would be a violation of the First Amendment. WRONG.
       If it’s equal rights for other religions that the ACLU wants, then why not propose putting up flags of other religions at the memorial? The council was not showing favoritism by displaying the Christian flag. It was showing honor, and reflecting the interests of the community. If the community wants other religious flags to be displayed, then so be it. But forcing the removal of the Christian flag is not a logical solution to this problem. It’s a biased, bullied scare tactic.
       And what of the cross that is being argued over? Did you read that about 2/3 of the way down in the article? Well, if you didn’t make it that far, I understand – because I was boiling by the time I got there too. The council is going to have to remove a cross from one of the memorials? Really? Come on. What if burial sites were sacred to a certain religion? Wouldn’t the forcing of the cross’s removal be a violation of the First Amendment? And even if burial sites are not sacred… why, again, is the only answer to remove the cross? Has anyone suggested that their loved one be memorialized by a goat’s head? A nine-point star? A peace sign? A Buddha statue? If so, then by all means, add it to the memorial site.
       But let’s be honest here – this is not really about being equally tolerant of all religions. It’s about being universally INtolerant of Christianity.

The Historical Argument:


       The pilgrims came to America seeking freedom from the religious oppression of Europe. They had seen in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and England how a nationalized religion destroys the supremacy of scripture, and how in a marriage of church and state, the church is always the abused spouse. They settled, and later established America as a country where the government would have no control over or “say” in the religious affairs of the people.
       When you read our founding documents, or even the personal letters of the Founding Fathers, you would be blind to conclude that religion did not influence government. Specifically – the Christian religion. Who is it that “endowed us with certain unalienable rights?” The government? The collective ideas of society? Nature? Philosophy? Nope – that would be our Creator. My friends,

the point wasn’t to keep Christ out of the government, 
it was to keep the government out of the church. 

       Oh my, how far we’ve come. I’d like to think that maybe we’ve just started rolling down a steep, unforgiving hill of some kind. Taking prayer out of schools, refusing to allow people to pray in Jesus’ name at public gatherings, fighting over whether or not we can put our national motto “In God We Trust” on our currency and on state license plates. Now look where we are… We can’t even hang a Christian flag in a public cemetery.

       But I know better than that. I know that our battle is not against legislators, lawmakers, supreme court justices, presidents, or the ACLU. It’s against the powers and principalities, the forces of this world (Ephesians 6:12). We’re in a spiritual battle against an enemy who has blinded (2 Corinthians 4:4) the ungodly of this age. It’s not them we’re fighting against. It’s him.

Am I the only one who sees this as an attack on Christianity? Am I wrong by asserting that taking down the Christian flag is NOT the logical option here? Somebody help me out…

Grace and Peace,
Tony