https://eloquentgushing.com/8zxh7t44m 
https://www.psicologialaboral.net/2024/08/07/4dkxfitxu “[God] will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of heaven as a shortcut to the nearest chemist’s shop.” — C.S. Lewis
https://www.completerehabsolutions.com/blog/t8cpxjf There is a difference between saying that America is a majority Christian nation and saying that America is a Christian nation. There is a difference between saying that it is wrong for the rights of the majority to be damaged by appeals to the “feelings” of the minority and saying that the majority religion ought to be allowed to aggressively assert itself and have certain privileges. There is a difference between a Christian American and an America full of Christians. Although the concepts sound similar, they could have vastly different effects. There is clearly nothing wrong in saying that America is a majority Christian country. Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian. For the moment I am setting aside the issue that a significant number of those Christians might not recognize their fellow Christians as Christian. That is another matter altogether. But, having a Christian America backed by the legal force of the State is another concept altogether and needs to be well thought through. There may be in-between positions that are viable, but it would take a careful re-writing of parts of the Constitution to make that a viable reality.
C.S. Lewis gives us a careful warning about our approach to the issue of Christianity and America. He came from a nation with a State Church, where that State Church had certain privileges and priority of access to authorities. At one point, it was not even possible to hold national office unless one were a member of the State-approved religion. He knew both the advantages and the dangers of that approach. On the one hand, he himself was a BBC radio broadcaster during part of his time. His World War II broadcasts were only possible because of the access that he had as a respected professor and member of the State Church. Those privileges made possible his Christian contribution to a nation in need of Christian truth. On the other hand, he knew of the dark side of a State Church that supported the colonialism and kept silent through many of the terrible events of that colonialism. Once you tie yourself to the State, you are tied to the State for better or for worse.
https://www.clawscustomboxes.com/d82xzvj Among certain American Christians, it is argued that there is a way to avoid that by not having a State Church, but rather having a legal recognition of what ends up being a State religion, which would have certain privileges and protections. There may be a viable middle approach possible; I do not deny that. I have lived in more than one country in which a Church was recognized as having special privileges and access. It can work. For those who argue, but what about the “rejected” non-Christian religions I say that frankly, much of that argument does not hold up, given the experience I have had in other countries. At the base of that argument is the argument that minority religions almost have the right and power to stop expressions of the majority religion. This is where I agree with those Christians who say that the pendulum has swung too far in the interpretation of the Establishment clause. Hopefully, the pendulum will swing back a bit in the other direction. But, that is a different subject.
https://sugandhmalhotra.com/2024/08/07/fbnp2kik1n What C.S. Lewis is warning about is the idea that by Christianizing society, society will get better. That idea was played out in British colonialism. White man’s burden (Rudyard Kipling) included not simply civilizing the native colonials but also introducing them to Christianity in order to better their lot and to teach them to behave well. In the same way, Americans who put forward the idea of returning to being a Christian nation need to be very careful about what they are thinking and what they are proposing. If what they are saying is that we need to return the country to being Christian in order to better the behavior of the USA, they are making a sore mistake. The British proved around the world that the idea of teaching Christian values, in and of itself, does not bring any lasting change in society. To argue that simply having that type of “moral” atmosphere being supported by the government by way of privileges and access will somehow create a climate of change does not work. The British Empire proved that.
Can You Buy Xanax In India But, it goes farther than that. “God will not be used as a convenience,” says Lewis. The danger of some of the approaches being espoused by Christians is that they take the dangerous road of assuming: first, that God is fully in favor of a Christian nation; and, two, that God will support that nation simply because of its Christian atmosphere. One need only read the history of Israel to see some of the danger of those assumptions.
Does this mean that there can be no adjustment to the current state of the interpretation of the Establishment Clause? No, not at all! May it never be! I think the current state of interpretation needs to change, as I pointed out earlier. But, I am cautioning that some of the proposals clearly stray into the very ground about which C.S. Lewis was warning.
Leave a Reply