Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor
Have you ever noticed how liberals respond when a Christian suggests the precepts of God’s Word as a solution to our nation’s woes?
In fact, commentary regarding Christianity and its value in our society seems to draw the most vehement confutation from progressives. Following any such “Godly” expression, one will surely be poorly lectured on the “separation of church and state” and the edicts of the First Amendment.
I never cease to be amazed at how liberals are so “proficient” at ensuring “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” but so inept at protecting “the free exercise thereof ”
It isn’t difficult to correlate the plight of our nation with the decline of our acceptance of God’s will for our country. Deuteronomy 11:26-28 clearly makes the connection.
“See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse – the blessing if you obey the commands of the Lord your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the Lord your God”
Each of us makes choices, directly or indirectly, based upon the values and principles we’ve adopted through our life’s learnings. But as a nation, we’ve made some devastatingly poor choices, many within our own judicial system. And as a nation, we’ve paid the price.
The decision by the Supreme Court in 1962 that allowing prayer in public schools amounted to government promotion of religion was a huge mistake and gave progressives the foothold they now leverage in attempting to remove any semblance of God from a public venue. It also paved the way for the 1963 decision to remove Bible reading and make the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer unconstitutional.
Abe Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” We are now reaping from those progressive seeds of the ’60s.
A decade later the court gave us the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade that protected a woman’s decision to have an abortion. The decision was meant to be balanced between protecting the women’s health and protecting the potentiality of human life and viability outside the womb.
Half a century later, it’s potentially easier to take the life of an innocent baby than it is to purchase cold medicine. And way too often, it’s not to protect the health of the mother – it’s simply a matter of “inconvenience.”
Our nation didn’t go astray overnight. Our country has been progressively desensitized to inhumanity. The clarity between good and evil has become blurred and it’s driven society to choose the temporal pleasures of life.
The Bible says, “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
Have we come too far to ever comply with this condition for restoration? I’m not optimistic.
But we must begin at some point. Now is a good time.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
Free State Patriot 
Deuteronomy 28.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe the mistake that people make concerning the separation of church and state, is not that citizens can’t practice their religion in a public place, and make choices according to their own religious beliefs, but that a CHURCH cannot dictate to the STATE, how to run the country. In the same breath, the STATE cannot dictate to RELIGIONS how they can practice that religion, even if it flies in the faces of others who do not believe in their views. As long as the practice of religion does not go against the laws of the land, the State or government should have no input on those practices.
Gay marriage, and abortion should be a choice of the individual, not the State. I believe in free choice, and I do not believe that the Government should make laws that takes away my free choice, as long as those choices to not inflict physical harm to others. Emotional harm, is in the eye of the beholder. What offends one person, does not always offend another. So if someone does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, FOR WHAT EVER REASON, the state should not have the right to force them to do so, on threat of fines, or otherwise. A business should have the right to turn away any customer, seeing as how they are the one losing that customer, Civil rights should not include the right to frequent a business that does not want their business. If it results in a boycott against that business, that is the risk the business owner takes, when they refuse service. But government has no right to force them to accept customers they feel uncomfortable serving.
The big question is does a fetus have human rights? In my opinion, the fetus has the right to be protected by the mother, and or father, but as long as the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother’s womb, it remains part of the mother’s body, and she should be able to make decisions concerning her own body. However, if the fetus can survive outside of the mother’s womb, which gives it the option to be protected by other than the father or mother, it should be treated as a developed human being that has separate rights, outside of the mother’s body. That is as close as I can come to justifying the right for the mother to choose, an abortion. If it is detrimental to the mother’s health, the decision should be made before the fetus can survive outside the mother’s womb. Otherwise I believe the child has the right to be brought to full term, and then adopted out, if the mother does not want to be responsible for its welfare.
My moto has always been live and let live, as long as no physical harm or loss is inflicted on others by your actions.
Jeanie
LikeLike