|
One's trivial and irritating: the opening paragraph contains a nice little fallacy. It assumes that the list of those blessed is exhaustive, and may not be. It undermines her argument but not her point (the old F --> T is T line from the standard truth table).
The second is more serious and potential flamebait. His logic parallels that of the Reconstructionists for a ways, and presumably could be logically taken to the same place North takes his. Instead of saying there is a difference between church and state, it lays claim to the state as church. We must impose peaceful, blessed, Christian values on an otherwise warlike, and therefore pagan state (whatever the name it applies to itself).
In other words, the difference between RW and LW activists isn't exerting control over the state and poking largish holes in the Jeffersonian "wall of separation", but what exactly they want to shove through the holes.
My personal view is that ultimately the wall is more of a hurdle (since the point Jefferson was making was effectively dismissed before he even made it, and so trivial today as to be invisible: Thanksgiving). The state is always going to reflect the views of the majority of the people, or at least its most outspoken portion, but that part should never completely dominate it.
The church, when attacked, has martyrs; to be non-violent and therefore martyred for Christ is a worthy thing. Christ did not tell the centurion to leave the army, that his job was sinful; he said to do it well. The state, when attacked, has soldiers; to die while killing the enemy is a worthy thing. We can argue that the US government's gone over to one side too much; but the proper course of action isn't to force it to the other ludicrous extreme, but a middle road.
|