Rather, Christ showed us what

the moral code of the Old Testament was meant to engender in us as children

of God, which is holiness and eventual union with God the Father (neither

a "maniacal killer" nor "benevolent despot") in Heaven.

So, as Christians, we are obliged to obey the spirit of the Law, if not

the exact letter.

In addition to misconstruing

the theological and moral relationship between the Old and New Testaments,

Mr. Parker gets some basic history wrong as well. The council he referred

to was in Nicaea, not "Nicosia," and the Bible didn't "take

its form" at the whim of Constantine.

The Council of Nicaea was actually

called by Constantine to settle the issue of Christ's divinity, which

it did definitively at the hands of the bishops present. We have it to

thank for the firm Dogma of the Trinity. The Canon of the Bible itself

would not formally be determined until later in the 4th century, although

before then there was near universal agreement on which books should be

included.

As for Mr. Parker's comment

about the 1462 years after the Council of Nicaea being witness to "all

manner of despotism and very little human respect," I have to wonder

if he isn't being a little reductionist and selective.

After all, during that period

we saw the holiness of people like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine

of Siena, and countless others who gave themselves completely to the purpose

of loving their fellow man. There was great art produced and the flourishing

of genius of all kinds.

Sure, there was bloodshed and

mayhem, but compared to the unprecedented bloodbath caused by the atheistic

ideologies of communism and fascism in the 20th century, it was relatively

minor in scope and degree.

But then Mr. Parker shines

his historical spotlight on the Constitution and does us all the great

favor of actually quoting the 1st amendment (instead of erroneously referring

to it as the "separation of church and state"). The aforesaid

amendment clearly, emphatically requires government to stay out of the

business of establishing churches or forcing people to be a particular

kind of Christian. That's all! It's a bit of a legal one-way street, isn't

it? As for Christian morals and standards informing the nature of law,

I believe there is not one single letter in the negative.

In other words, our government

and our society, at their foundation, intentionally left open the door

to religious influence. Indeed, it was thought indispensable for

democracy to succeed.

Law based on morality derived

from God is the only kind of law which truly protects the individual from

tyranny. Sure, sometimes this law impinges on our more unhealthy desires

for the benefit of society as a whole, but such determinations are an

organic feature of a truly democratic society. If you don't believe me,

again, look at the regimes where God had no place in the law (Nazi Germany,

Soviet Russia) and see how well they did!

Mr. Parker's final jab is at

the supposed contradiction of "the passions of religion" and

"reasoned governance." Hogwash! Was Martin Luther King Jr. "unreasonable"

for his appeal to Christian charity in the establishment of civil rights

and justice? Was Abraham Lincoln a fool for invoking clearly the Christian

God as the ultimate authority for the abolishment of slavery?

Mr. Parker, if you want a Godless

land, there are fortunately few places left where you can go. But please,

for the sake of our liberty, dignity, and justice, don't be a party to

the removal of God in this country. Without Him, we are little more than

brutes brandishing our clubs and engaging in whatever despicable behavior

that warms our loins.

Trey Hoffman

Peachtree City, Ga.