Once again Brent Walker shows us how his faith contradicts itself.

Does Brent Walker believe Christ is God, and that His teaching alone reveals full absolute Truth? Yes. (Let us hope this is true. . . he is Baptist and therefore has trusted his soul to Christ for all eternity)

So the wonderful Truth that Christ has revealed gives us a proper understanding of reality and the world. Does Mr. Walker support bringing this Truth to bear upon both our politics and world? Amazingly, no. He would rather our government remain neutral and therefore blind to the truth Christ gave the world. How does this make sense?

Our elected officials should and must be free to bring their worldview to bear upon policy. Advocating neutrality is to promote secularism. . . and it is secularism that is destroying the moral fabric of what was a Christian nation. Didn't Christ say because you are neither hot nor cold I will vomit you out of my mouth? Brent Walker's secular ideas have literally made America vomit. (To be fair, Brent Walker did not come up with these ideas. He simply perpetuates liberal secular humanism which his education taught him.)

The extreme separation of church and state that Walker advocates will not be squared with history. His definition would forbid prayer in our political assemblies. Yet we all know the founding fathers welcomed prayer as the people's representatives gathered.

If our country is to ever be redeemed citizens must be freed from mama government. Religious speech must not be forbidden (as a recent principled manifesto for separation of church and state advocated. . . that a governor could not preach the Gospel through his elected office).

Why is there fear that Christians might have too much control? Allow free speech. Allow ideas to be argued and debated. Allow our public officials to say Islam is a violent religion while Christianity brings peace and stability to people.

Forced government neutrality endorses godless secularism and handcuffs the Christian/Gospel. Without the Gospel/revelation from God the people perish. Look at our public schools/children. Look at our families. Look at our culture's entertainment and fantasies/dreams. Are we not a people who are ignorant of the things of God? Are we not perishing?

Free our elected officials from the chains of forced neutrality. I am not advocating the establishment of religion, but rather our fighting for the free exercise thereof. Forced neutrality ties the hands of our churches and saved officials. Why are churches not allowed to endorse candidates? Churches are bribed into silence with tax exemption.

If you want to engage the world with the truth of Christ tied behind your back then agree with Brent Walker. If you believe freedom of religion will enable the church to press forward with the Gospel, fight against his ideas. If you are one to just sit back and do nothing, well, you have bigger problems to deal with. Cheifly, a lack of love for God.

My main point is elected officials should not be stripped of their faith as soon as they swear to uphold the constitution. If our government is not going to trust us, her citizens, to take care of the poor, and therefore tax/take money that people of faith would have naturally donated to faith based care, then our elected officials that we choose should be able to allocate tax funds to faith based organizations. Or at least empower Christian citizens to take the portion of their taxes funding secular care and give them to faith based institutions. Let us be free again, and do not force us to fund the secularists who are anti-Christian!

Yet, Walker and the secularists think the west and free world will be able to stop the westward march of Islam and its ultimate goal of world conquest by taking a "neutral" position. Europe bears grim testimony to the futility of doing so. Walker and his lawyer friends are so hung up on their misinterpretation of the letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury, Virginia Association, they are blind to reality.

KT2005:

Brent Walker is merely doing his job as Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty, and that is expressing and defending the traditional and historic Baptist position on the issue of separation of church and state.

I would not expect you to agree with it, but it has been proven reliable for over 400 years of Baptist history, and it was incorporated unchanged into the 1925, 1963, and 2000 BF&M’s.
In case you haven’t read it in a while, here is Title XVII in its entirety:

“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.”

Let me especially direct your attention to the phrase “The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends,” and ask two questions:

(1) Why should we seek or expect the government’s help in propagation of the Gospel in the form of legislation, education, public displays, or the bully pulpit of Christian government officials?

(2) Considering the fact that the church has at its disposal the unlimited power of the Holy Spirit, why do we even need the lesser power of human government to help us?

You may disagree with Mr. Walker, or with me, but your argument is really with Baptist history and Title XVII of the BF&M.

FWN,

Very well said. . . I disagree of coarse, but I respect an argument that is well made.

Once the government crosses the line of taking my hard earned money and giving it to another, I, as a citizen tax payer, should have a say in how that money is spent. To take money from religious Americans in order to promote secular education, secular assistance, and secular public displays is wrong. The government is forcing believers to fund pagan promotion and practices.

If the government is going to cross the line and support advocating worldviews. . . which is what secularism is. . . then we, as voting citizens, should have a say on what values our tax dollars support. This can be done by allowing elected officials to fund faith based projects, or each citizen can have control over the portion of tax dollars used for charity. Individual control of welfare tax revenue would allow citizens to support faith based poverty programs and religious education directly.

So to answer question 1" The government does promote a worldview/religion: which is secularism. Walker's views make this perspective the god of the state. I argue that voters should have a say through elected officials or by direct control over how taxes are spent.

Your second question about why the church needs the help of the state when the almighty Holy Spirit indwells us can be thrown right back at you. Why argue that there must be a radical separation of church and state if the HS is among us. We both have strong opinions about the role of government because we understand how vastly influential Washington D.C. is in our country and world.

Right now Washington is waging a secular war upon the Christian faith. Our children are indoctrinated in secularism Monday through Friday. Everything from evolution to gay rights are being taught in government schools. Liberals have found the perfect way to undermine Christian traditions: the state! Separation of church and state is their way of continuing the victorious march of secularism in the country. I'm sure you see this.

When will believers wake up and demand the government of the people stop attacking our Christian faith. Brent Walker's worldview does not create a government of the people, but rather a government that preaches the gospel of secularism.

KT2005:

Ah…good old “secular humanism,” the mothers’ milk of fundamentalism, but that’s philosophy, and I’ll get to it in a moment.
First, what you did and didn’t say about my post:

(1) You didn’t say, so I assume you agree that Title XVII well summarizes the traditional, historical Baptist position on separation and state, even though you evidently don’t agree with it.

(2) You seem to be using the old “Christian Citizen” approach to Question 1, in that you want the government to spend that portion of its budget which you contribute through taxes to be spent ONLY on the things you want it to be spent on (parochial education, public displays, faith-based welfare, etc.). There are many, many flaws in your line of reasoning here; let me name just three:

(a) This is NOT the Biblical model that Christ left us with (Luke 20:25), and the NT is devoid of any evidence the early church practiced it. Christ said, “My Kingdom is not of this world.” We, as citizens of both the U.S. and the Kingdom of Heaven, have dual citizenship with distinct obligations to both domains. The Biblical model for these obligations is separate, but equal.

(b) The Federal budget would have to be increased 10-fold, just to cover the administrative expenses of such a plan. Just imagine the difficulty of printing “This check was provided by KT2005, Christian” on all your contributions!

(c) Why stop there? There are lots of folks who might object to spending tax money on things you favor. Do they get to opt-out, too? There is the possibility, though, that under such a plan, Dubya’s war in Iraq might have been over by July, 2003.

(3) You completely failed to answer my second question. Once again, if we have the Holy Spirit, why do we need the government? God provided Him for our use. Do you not believe He’s powerful enough to meet our every need? Do you not trust Him to provide all the assistance the church needs to spread the gospel? Do you not believe He can overcome the forces of “secular humanism” you believe are so rampant in the world? Apparently you do not, since you’d rather depend on the government.

Now, briefly, about that secular humanism.

As an old college debater, we were taught that he who asserts must prove; you have asserted, and now you have a heavy burden of proof to establish that constitutionally-mandated neutrality on the part of the government towards religion promotes secular humanism. That proof would involve, as a minimum:

(1) A clear definition of secular humanism, from an objective, and not a fundamentalist, position. No platitudes!

(2) That a clear majority of people in government or in government-sponsored activities are secular humanists or have secular humanist goals in the full range of their activities.

(3) That these activities and/or goals are EMPIRICALLY DETRIMENTAL to the life, liberty, and welfare of Americans, whether Christian or not.

(4) That evangelical Christians, empowered by the Holy Spirit, are unable to resist the power of secular humanism in their own lives, and the lives of their families, churches, and communities, by complying with Biblical models.

FWN,

Your writing skills and debating ability are very impressive. It is as if you are a new man. ;-)

1. I will not concede to you Baptist history.

"The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends."

The state penalizes the Church's political speech with taxes.

Again. . . "The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind."

"The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion."

As I have said before, secular humanism is a religion unto itself. Under such a philosophy human wisdom, especially that of the ruling elite class, is exalted over the revelation of Christ. Such faith in self kills the soul for eternity.

What does the state support with our taxes?

1. Evolution (Public Schools and universities)
2. Homosexuality(Public Schools and universities)
3. Feminism ("""")
4. Abortion (Mexico Policy, or lack there of actually)
5. Euthanasia (Individual states: Right to Die)
etc.

"A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.”

Secular humanism attempts to shut down debate by ruling all faith beliefs out of bounds regarding public policy. Only by hiding behind a secularly constructed wall of separation between church and state are liberals able to use the mechanisms of government to their ends. Brent Walker argues above that Christian principles are out of bounds regarding public and foreign policy. Does not such secular thinking shut down speech? This nonsense is done in a country where our Declaration of Independence says rights are explicitly derived from God!

We are both against the state establishing a church, but where we draw the lines puts our positions worlds apart. (I'm sure you have much to say here.)

2. You are misunderstanding my position. I do believe the government has the right to spend tax money however it wants. Yet in a democracy/republic, we as citizens have the right to influence how funds are spent. It is this very influence that you wish to destroy by a false understanding of separation of church and state. You want to take a Christian's money but deny his influence on how those funds are spent. In other words, you do not trust the people, especially Christian people.

You do not believe our huge government could keep up with where individual tax payers want charity taxes spent? Why do I feel like you would contradict yourself in supporting government health care? Regardless, allowing citizens to control welfare would do a world of good for our poor. If you wish to defend the status quo go ahead, but I trust the people to make wise charity choices.

3. I most certainly answered your question. You contradict yourself. If you believe the Holy Spirit is so powerful why do you wish to protect the church through separation of church and state? Just because we have the Spirit and God will ultimately be victorious does not negate the obvious fact that government is powerfully influential. Currently, our government is preaching secular humanism. I want this to stop.

Now to your other points.

1. Defining secular humanism: how about the page on wikipedia. Is that secular enough for you?

2. John Dewey, enough said.

3. Are you serious? Not to be disrespectful, but come on. Divorce rates, out of wedlock births, teen pregnancy, abortion, drug abuse, homosexuality, etc. Need I say more? Open your eyes my friend.

4. Did I say this?

Now, here are questions I have for you:

1. Under your definition of separation of church and state how is prayer before congress justified. If you cannot justify it, then isn't your understand of church and state historically flawed? Let's face it, to pray means we are choosing one deity over another. How does this not violate your definition of separation?

2. Do you deny that John Dewey, a creator of the secular philosophy of public schools, wanted to undermine Christianity/tradition? Has he been successful by using tax dollars from Christians?

3. Do you deny that when government becomes more secular human rights suffer? See abortion, holocaust, euthanasia, and Marxism/Communism where millions were killed in order to create the perfect secular state

4. Would you agree that Christ reveals the Truth? For governments to deny this Truth is to literally engage the world while blinded to reality. Doesn't the Bible say "the government will be upon His shoulders"? How do you reconcile your views with this verse?

KT: I see a lot of personal opinion in your answers, as well as your interpretations of what is happening. Where you interpret trends as secular humanism, Baptists have held to a separation-of-church-and-state principle. As a teenager, I remember lots of Baptist Training Union studies that supported this concept. It was basic to our thinking to such a strong extent that one of the pastors with whom I served had been a former exec with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. That entire point changed with the Conservative Resurgence, or Fundamentalist Takeover, or whatever you want to call it. The fact remains that there are a host of us out here that don't want to see the separation principle violated. For example, I don't want any agency of government forbidding the teaching of evolution, or insisting that some form of creationism be taught just because religious conservatives want it. We don't win non-believers by cramming our theories down their children's throats. We win them by our witness, just as we did for generations before the arch-conservatives took over the SBC.

Singer2,

I respect your views even though they don't perfectly fit with mine. Please know that I am not asking to "cram" creationism or my faith down anyone's throat. I simply do not want the opposite. . . which is the current reality. Our children are taught the virtues of homosexuality, birth control, and evolution by so called public schools (even though we the public/parents have no real control over how our schools operate). I pay for this trash with my tax dollars. All I am asking is for my tax dollars to not fund anti-christian secularism. I want American citizens to fund the schools and charities of their choice rather than be taxed against our consent to fund hostility to our religion. Conservative Christians do not desire to shove our faith down the throats of others, yet we long for the government to stop shoving their secularism into our children and communities. Is that too much to ask?

Case and point:

Read this New York Times article about how the people's representatives want to ensure our children are not indoctrinated with global warming junk science. I'm sure everyone is aware that global warming scientists have been caught red handed falsifying scientific data. Notice how the orthodox secularists enforce their doctrine. All doubters are labeled as faith fanatics. Yet they are the fanatics who fear scientific debate and free speech. We are forced to fund this craziness with our tax dollars. . . and are these few representatives fighting the government for freedom of speech successful? NO. Only a handful of states object as our President creates "climate literacy" education for our government schools. So once again the secularists win by indoctrinating our children with global warming hysteria. . . which is taught as truth.

How do we not see what is right in front of our faces??? The secular humanists have a faith they are forcing upon citizens through state bureaucracy. . . and we do nothing. Liberty rest upon ideals and ideas. To lose our minds is to lose our liberty. How can a secularist in his separation of church and state neutrality support God given rights? If God does not give us our rights where to they come from? The secularists say rights come from the state. Well, what the state gives the state can take away. This is why natural law and God given rights are better political philosophy. All my publicly educated friends are saying I never thought of this before. These are the principles our republic was built upon, and our public education has failed to pass on these values. Why do we continue to pay for bad education? Anyhow, here is the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html?pagewanted=1&hp