On Rush Limbaugh's radio show, Limbaugh had an interview with Karl Rove about several different matters. My purpose is not to going into the details of that interview. However, Karl Rove made some comments that represent the thought of many Americans, and in that case, it may prove instructive. Rove said, “It's one thing to say we're based on the Judeo-Christian ethic or draw from the Judeo-Christian ethic, that we have enshrined the free expression of religion, that we have no state establishment of a state church, but you can't say we're a Christian nation 'cause that leaves out the Jews and the Buddhist and the Sikhs and the nonbelievers, all of whom under our Constitution are as good an American as anybody else.”

Several observations can be made here:

First, Rove admits our nation is founded on the Christian ethic. On this principle alone, we ought to consider America as a Christian nation. How else does one determine whether a nation is Christian or not but upon the laws of the nation? One can know what the god of any nation is by evaluating the laws of the nation; whatever the laws appeals to as the source of authority is the god of that nation. The appeal of our founders- for the most part - was the Christian God. Any deviancy from that principle, therefore, is revolution. Judges, civil magistrates, etc. who appeal to themselves or reason (usually an indirect way of appealing to the self) as the standard of authority are in fact undermining the very law structure of America.

Secondly, Rove thinks the first amendment means freedom of all religions, and supposedly this is a Christian concept or "ethic". However, the Bible nowhere advocates religious pluralism. The God of Scripture is represented as a jealous God who will not tolerate individuals or nations that are given over to idolatry.

Thirdly, in Rove’s comment he commits the fallacy of petitio principii, that is, he begs the question. The point in dispute is whether America is a Christian nation. To prove his point that America is not a Christian nation, Rove says that “The Jew, Buddhist and the Sikhs and the nonbeliever…are as good an American as anybody else”. But whether the Jew, the Buddhist, Sikhs and the nonbeliever are “good Americans” is directly related to whether America is a Christian nation. If it is a Christian nation and these different groups advocate a departure from Christian faith, which is the foundation of our legal tradition, then simple enough, they would not be “good Americans”; they would be revolutionaries. I am not stating that Jews and Buddhists can’t be Americans, nor that all are revolutionists, but any attempt to institute their ideas or their laws to our nation is.

In the sense of influence, there is no separation of church and state nor ought there to be one. The proper way to view the matter would be to have the church under God, the government under God and our nation under God; that is a general way of viewing the relationship. A civil magistrate is not a pastor, the state government is not a church, but they have in common that they are both to administer God’s law in their sphere authority. The power of the sword is given to civil magistrates, but it is not to the church. The administration of the sacraments is to be done by the church, not the state. But both are to look to the Christian Scriptures to determine what the will of God is for them in their given spheres. A separation of Christianity and state will only result in the stripping away of our liberties; the liberties we enjoy only because we were founded on Christian principles.

Okay...so, it has been a year and we never did get something up on this blog. Of course, we have several reasons for not doing so, all of which may be aptly called excuses. Whether there are readers or not, the next few posts will have some meat to them. Some will be things we have already written in the past, or things we have written that have only sat in a Word document. Without any further adieu, there are things to write and study upon.