Where Christianity is a Crime
It is easy in the United States to forget the importance of our freedom to express faith. We are guaranteed by our Constitution the right to worship as we see fit. Yet there are those who want to control when and where we exercise that right by creating a wall between church and state: a wall which is not spoken of in our Constitution.
Most often when this fictional wall is spoken of the intended separation is between state and Christianity, as the ACLU and others very rarely go after people of other religions. For example, we had a situation here in Pennsylvania where a school principal allowed the display of items from the Jewish and Islamic religions, but refused the display of a manger scene. This very clear political statement found many defenders who were willing to overlook the principal's hypocrisy.
The next time someone suggests the Constitution of the United States some how limits the rights of Christians to express their faith, think about the constitution of Afghanistan. You remember Afghanistan, the country we freed from the rule of the Taliban? Well the Taliban may no longer have control, but limits to personal freedom still exist as 41-year-old Abdul Rahman is finding out. Rahman is standing trial for rejecting Islam and converting to Christianity. Under Afghanistan's constitution the courts are required to sentence him to death.
The prosecutor told the AP, "We are Muslims and becoming a Christian is against our laws. He must get the death penalty." Clearly the prosecutor is targeting Abdul because of his Christian beliefs, and not just because he left Islam.
This is the real reason our Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion and from restricting the free practice of religion in this country. The founding fathers understood from history that a government which promotes a religion will persecute those who do not embrace 'acceptable' beliefs. The Constitution is designed to keep us from punishing people for their beliefs. Yet it is twisted today in order to persecute those who hold the Bible to be true.
Considering how the judge in Rahman's case has already been quoted as saying "...This sort of thing is against the law," I suspect Rahman's fate is sealed. He can avoid death by converting back to Islam: a deal he has refused. If Adbul Rahman is willing to stand up for his faith, even if it means death, Christians who are protected by the U.S. Constitution should be willing to stand up against those who want us to keep our faith locked up in our homes.
See Also:
Independent Conservative, where I first read about Rahman.
La Shawn Barber has more on this story as well as on Christian martyrdom.
Most often when this fictional wall is spoken of the intended separation is between state and Christianity, as the ACLU and others very rarely go after people of other religions. For example, we had a situation here in Pennsylvania where a school principal allowed the display of items from the Jewish and Islamic religions, but refused the display of a manger scene. This very clear political statement found many defenders who were willing to overlook the principal's hypocrisy.
The next time someone suggests the Constitution of the United States some how limits the rights of Christians to express their faith, think about the constitution of Afghanistan. You remember Afghanistan, the country we freed from the rule of the Taliban? Well the Taliban may no longer have control, but limits to personal freedom still exist as 41-year-old Abdul Rahman is finding out. Rahman is standing trial for rejecting Islam and converting to Christianity. Under Afghanistan's constitution the courts are required to sentence him to death.
The prosecutor told the AP, "We are Muslims and becoming a Christian is against our laws. He must get the death penalty." Clearly the prosecutor is targeting Abdul because of his Christian beliefs, and not just because he left Islam.
This is the real reason our Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion and from restricting the free practice of religion in this country. The founding fathers understood from history that a government which promotes a religion will persecute those who do not embrace 'acceptable' beliefs. The Constitution is designed to keep us from punishing people for their beliefs. Yet it is twisted today in order to persecute those who hold the Bible to be true.
Considering how the judge in Rahman's case has already been quoted as saying "...This sort of thing is against the law," I suspect Rahman's fate is sealed. He can avoid death by converting back to Islam: a deal he has refused. If Adbul Rahman is willing to stand up for his faith, even if it means death, Christians who are protected by the U.S. Constitution should be willing to stand up against those who want us to keep our faith locked up in our homes.
See Also:
Independent Conservative, where I first read about Rahman.
La Shawn Barber has more on this story as well as on Christian martyrdom.
posted by Dennis | 12:34 PM
3 Comments:
Uh, it precisely because Afghanistan does NOT have a clear separation of church and state that poor Abdul has to suffer for his beliefs. We here in the U.S. have separation of church and state. You would rather we not have it? Or have it in some limited sense, like if we want to be able to pray to Jesus at school as part of our children's curricula? Just how far do you wish there -not- to be separation of church and state? Just what is your position on this?
I want the separation of church and state to be used as it is spelled out in the Constitution. You are correct, this means we would not do what Afghanistan is doing to Abdul. But it does not mean Christians cannot express their faith on public property. Do I want prayer in the school curricula? No, but I also do not want children to be made to feel guilty because they exercise their constitutional right to pray to Jesus in school.
My stance is that the separation of church and state is to limit the government, not to limit the people, or a specific group of people. The ACLU and a few very vocal groups want to use the Constitution to limit Christians, and this makes them no different than the people prosecuting Abdul.
For the record I never said there was no separation of church and state in the US. My post said there is no imaginary wall controlling when and where people are able to express their faith.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home