Posted by Anthony on July 10, 2009
I had a series in mind about freedom, government, taxation, and Christianity but discussion over the first of those entries has led me to take a detour and cover some preliminary ground. The original post was titled ‘The Christian Church shouldn’t use the Government to do THEIR good deeds.’ I posted it to my blog but it received attention and criticism on my facebook page.
I drew some flak even from conservative Christians who ostensibly abide by ‘limited government.’ It appeared to me that there is some important ground that needs to be covered. The following is in part a response to the criticism of the original note but also worthy in its own right.
Important caveat: the following is written BY A CHRISTIAN and pertains ONLY TO CHRISTIANS, and then, ONLY THE CHRISTIANS THAT TAKE THE BIBLE AS THEIR FINAL AUTHORITY. I hope that is sufficiently clear.
——————-
1 Peter 4:17: “For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?”
Sprinkled throughout the Scriptures is evidence of God’s fondness for a certain order of interaction with the human race. The idea that judgment begins with the family of God is not isolated to Peter and the idea that there are stages in judgment is not isolated to the apostles. For example, Jesus himself alludes to it in Mark 7 when he at first refuses to minister to the Syrophoenician Woman, saying, “First let the children eat all they want.”
Out of all the peoples and nations on the planet, God chose to work his plan through one particular person, Abraham, and then one particular nation, Israel, until such time that he revealed himself personally. At that point, his goal was to reach the world through the Church. The Gospel came first to the Jews because it was only appropriate that it do so. Paul warns in Romans 11:13-21 that there was a pattern to God’s work, beginning with the Jews: “For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.” Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on May 8, 2008
Tonight at their council meeting the trustees of the village of Holmen voted unanimously to approve the sale of a tiny piece of property with a star on it- which can be lighted as a cross during Easter- for $600. The property had been appraised at $100.00. Six times the appraisal value might seem a little odd… but the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the American Humanist Association had bid somewhere in the realm of $1,200 for the property, vowing to remove the cross for sure, and in the case of the FFRF, the star as well (we can suppose the star constitutes an establishment of the religion of astrology by the town of Holmen).
I recently discussed the issue in this entry about the Holmen Cross and the most recent developments so I will just briefly comment now.
This whole move was done in order to mimic the route that La Crosse took. In that incident, the FFRF sued on account of a 10 Commandment monument, and the town of La Crosse sold the piece of property it was on to a local private group.
The problem with that approach, as with Holmen adopting it, is that the residual issue still remains: is it constitutional or not for a city to have on its property religious symbols or monuments? Does it or does it not constitute an ‘establishment of religion’? Is the most important thing really merely retaining the displays? It may be a legal avenue to preserve the display to sell off 50 square sections of city parks and property but do we really want thousands of ‘free expression’ zones like tiny islands?
Here is the thing: The FFRF and the AHA have both suggested that they might yet sue. Perhaps the village of Holmen will win that suit. Yet by dodging the issue, atheistic activists will continue to be able to harass cities and towns across the country. If you’re going to get sued anyway, you may as well have taken a route which would have really achieved something substantial. Will we continue to be a nation where atheists say ‘jump!’ and small governments reply, ‘How high?’
So now we shall see what comes of things. Such irony it would be if the FFRF sues Holmen (on the grounds that declining the higher bid was poor stewardship of public resources, or something like that) and wins! The star would come down after all on perfectly mundane legal grounds, with no precedent at all to show for it! We shall see.
All my entries on the Holmen Star issue.
Posted by Anthony on May 6, 2008
This Thursday, May 8th, the Holmen village council is expected to take up the issue of the Holmen ‘Cross.’ Perched on a bluff that can be seen from a great distance is a lighted star that during Easter is lighted as a cross instead, for just about a week. A relatively new resident decided that this offended him and it constituted an establishment of religion. The Holmen village decided to sell the small piece of property to the Lions Club which formerly was involved with the star and cross. This would effectively put the object on private land and dodge the church and state separation issue.
Oh, if only that would work.
A recent Holmen Courier article reports that several national atheistic organizations have taken an interest in the affair.
According to the article, the piece of property was appraised at $100.00 and the American Humanist Association and the Freedom From Religion Foundation have both placed bids higher than a $1,000. The basic idea is to shame the village of Holmen if they consider offering the land to the Lions Club at its appraised value. Additionally, the Lions Club might be forced to decide the cost is too high in order to avoid that shame. But probably the real reason is legal. The article reports that “Both Ritter [AHA] and Gaylor [FFRF] said litigation is a possibility if the Lions Club wins possession of the land with a lower bid.”
Indeed.
The Holmen village council had hoped to avoid controversy and turmoil by following in the footsteps of La Crosse, who after a bitter legal process successfully defeated the FFRF and managed to sell of a 10 Commandment monument in a La Crosse park to a private entity. That was their hope, but it was misguided. In seeking to avoid a lawsuit they will probably still end up in a lawsuit. The only way to avoid a confrontation is to submit to the demands and remove the cross. With Eric Barnes bringing to bear two national anti-religious organizations it is clear to me that the town of Holmen had better move quick to produce some allies of their own.
Now, some of my own thoughts. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on March 27, 2008
The national issue about religious icons (read: Christian symbols) on public land has struck very close to home. This link will give some background to the whole affair but there are a few other things of note which perhaps in due time I will speak to. I have strong feelings about such issues and have spoken about other areas. It doesn’t make sense not to chronicle the situation and opine on it on my own blog since I actually live in the vicinity of the offending cross. So here goes.
As the article explains, in a purchase for other purposes, the village of Holmen also acquired a cross positioned prominently on the same property, visible in many directions. Now, after decades of being a non-issue, after it was learned that it was now on public land, a certain Eric Barnes became offended and lodged an unofficial complaint. The village of Holmen plans to resolve the issue the same way that La Crosse (about 15 minutes away) did just a few years back: sell the land to a private entity which would then maintain the cross.
Honestly, I don’t have strong feelings about that cross being there, but I do have strong feelings about a single person having the capacity to make a whole community abide his thin-skinned whims. Skeptics and atheists wonder why they are not taken all too seriously by the Christian community and are offended when Christians don’t exhibit undying patience to atheistic demands. This is a case in point. It is extremely difficult to understand how a cross which was on a hill for decades caused no mental harm but the innocent transfer to public ownership now makes it a traumatic affair. One is left wondering if the cross had offended the individual(s) the whole time but only now can they do something about it. Read the rest of the entry… »
