migtig said:
But back to the topic at hand - I truly feel it was an illegal decision for the judge to pronounce what religion parents can share with a child. A wiccan creed is something along the lines of "harm none" so they are a form of pacifist, so it's not like their religion places the child in danger. I don't think in our country where religion and government are supposed to be kept apart, that the govenment has any right to say what religion children should be exposed too. If that's the case, let's go ahead and commit to being a communist country. It's the more we are open to new beliefs and customs and colors of people and the more we allow our children to be open and receptive, that we find harmony among others, instead of distrust and strife.
Well-written opinion!
I have to admit that I'm struggling with some things that are not mutually exclusive.
On the one hand, our nation owes its origin and its success to God; as we increasingly turn our backs on Him, I believe the survival of our nation, whose success and survival have thus far been at God's pleasure, is in peril. The pressure to reduce the un-Godly influences of other religions, permissiveness regarding amoral and sinful behaviour, etc. is being felt by most thinking Christians.
On the other hand, I agree that the law should stay out of the family and out of the church.
Thirdly, I believe I have a responsibility as a Christian to try to minimize un-Godly influences in people's lives, to try and help people be saved, to make it possible for them to come to Christ (and Heaven for eternity). I wish I could help make that happen for all of you great people here!
On the other hand, I don't believe in browbeating people.
So there y'are. That's my little conundrum.