Thanksgiving for the separation of Church and State

[David Evarts]

I think that it’s time we evangelical Christians thank the Lord for the separation of church and state and put some of our time and money into the ongoing fight to preserve this quintessentially American doctrine. This national belief, enshrined in the Constitution of the United States as the 1st amendment is at least partly responsible for the fact that America can boast of the greatest number of Christians found in any industrial nation. I believe that Christians should be involved in our national marketplace of ideas. This is a freedom guaranteed by the first amendment. The Bible clearly commands Christians to cry out to the government on behalf of the “least of these” and condemn the government when it ignores their needs or favors the wealthy and powerful. However, organizations who describe themselves as Christian and patriotic and yet stand opposed to the separation of church and state undermine the principles that have made America a beacon to those seeking freedom of conscience and rob American Christianity of its moral standing. They are not in line with historic evangelical Christianity in America or the Bible

A central tenet of evangelical Christianity is that each person must freely choose whether or not to accept, reject or ignore Christ. A true commitment to Christ requires that a person, in full awareness and in good conscience personally decide. A coerced choice or one made in response to government favoritism is not an honest choice. Free choice requires a market place of ideas from which one can sample. If an idea is true it will stand this test. If it is of God, it will survive. The 1st Amendment, by keeping competing religions and denominations from using the government to gain an unfair or coercive advantage, has allowed free will. One of the reasons that peopleof other faiths or who are unsure of religion in general are free to become a Christian in America, is that we can discuss varying ideas and choose the one that rings most true, without government pressure or favoritism.

The Results of the open American marketplace for religious and philosophical ideas have been the development of evangelicalism and that over 90% of Christians claim a Christian faith. If our fellow christians seek for our faith from the government, they risk causing the destruction of Christianity in America. European nations have all had a history of state mandated and repression by them. In many European nations a favored denomination still receives financial support and official status from the government. This has led to suffocating and disregarded churches. It is one of the most important reasons that the majority of modern Europeans are not interested in Christianity. The Swedish national church petitioned their government to cease financially or otherwise supporting them in 2000, so that they could begin to grow like American churches. The Norwegian church has also asked to be untied from their government.

A related reason for the separation of church and state is that government and the power seekers it inevitably attracts corrupt religion. This is the primary reason that the colonial churches pressed for the 1st amendments establishment clause. They did not want their faith to be shamed, co-opted or degraded by politicians. Does anyone doubt that amongst those who seek evangelical control of or finances from the government that there are shameless power mongers? Does anyone doubt that political power can corrupt a pastor or a church? The cost of government endorsement for our faith is that validity of our faith is called into question.

Those who, seemingly unaware that history shows that intermixing government and religion destroys Christianity, call for the abolition or lessening of the separation of church and state often claim that America’s founding fathers intended for America to be a “Christian nation.” The phrase “the separation of church and state” does not appear in the constitution. However, the record is very clear that the founding fathers intended to keep the state and religion independent of each other. This has been supported by the Supreme Court through the course of our history.
I am a member of a Baptist congregation. Baptists can be rightfully proud that our churches have been, until recently, amongst the most consistently fierce defenders of separation of church and state. We are also the denomination responsible for the origination of the phrase. Roger Williamsthe colonial founder of the Baptist tradition in America, preached forcefully against church-state intermingling. When the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to Thomas Jefferson, seeking assurance that the Bill of Rights included a barrier between the government and churches, Thomas Jefferson paraphrased Roger Williams in answering. “I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state." On May 16th, 1920, George Washington Truet, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, stood on the capitol steps in Washington D.C. and proudly announced that the separation of church and state was “preeminently a Baptist achievement” and the “cheifest contribution that America has made to civilization.” Until the last few decades, most American Christian denominations continued to celebrate this wise barrier. We should return to doing so.
If you value your church and you’d like to see people have the opportunity to freely choose Christ, I urge you to pledge your support for a clear and continued separation of church and state. You could lead your church in giving thanks for the protections of the wall of separation. I’ll join you. I value the liberty of my faith and the liberty of my neighbors to worship God or not as they choose and in the way they choose.

 

[David Evarts]

Interesting. Can you name an atheist in elected office or government position? I am far more frightened of "Christians" in political office. If there is someone who is likely to crush my right to worship as a Christian, my right to freedom of thought and the rights of my neighbors to free from unwarranted coercion it's some of our fellow Christians.

 

[Gishin]

Interesting. Can you name an atheist in elected office or government position? I am far more frightened of "Christians" in political office. If there is someone who is likely to crush my right to worship as a Christian, my right to freedom of thought and the rights of my neighbors to free from unwarranted coercion it's some of our fellow Christians.

You must be new here. Clirus is our insane eugenicist who wants to execute pretty much everyone not Clirus. Clirus also thinks everyone who is not her brand of extremist Christianity (clirustianity) is an atheist, regardless if you Jewish, Muslim, or whatever.

 

[David Evarts]

Ah, but the laws of God in order to mix with the state have to be enacted and enforced by people. People, including Christians, especially Christians, have a nasty habit of enforcing their own cruelty in God's name. How many Christians have been martyred by other Christians, using the power of the state, in Gods name? How many people of other faiths have been martyred by Christians under the same circumstances? If you value your freedom of Christian conscience, you need to fight to keep the state and church separated. Theocracies prey on people of their own beleifs as well as those of other beleifs.

 

[Ringo84]

AMEN!

I'm so glad that someone finally gets it!
Ringo

 

[citizenthom]

It's not that I don't support separation of church and state. It's that I can think of a lot of better things to spend $100,000 and hundreds of hours of lawyers' time on than stopping the prayer at the beginning of a football game or taking down the Christmas display at City Hall.

 

[David Evarts]

Hey Citizenthom, good point. But, if we don't fight these little battles for "the wise barrier" we risk fighting on far scarier grounds. Perhaps, if we educated folks to value their religous freedom they would be less likely to step on others toes in little ways and ask for special recognition of their faith from government that they would not want those with other views receiving. I'd have no problem with creches on public property or prayers at government funded events if people of all faiths and no particular faith were allowed to have their displays and prayers or prayer equivalents as well. Then we could have a free market place of ideas without government interference. Do you beleive that Christian faith would be less compelling if people had a free and informed choice?

 

[Mr Dave]

Thank God for Anglican Bishops in the House of Lords

I find it interesting that you use just one former established European church to argue in favour of separation, by claiming that with an established church the other denominations are left to flounder. This is not the case in Great Britain (which I'd have thought would have
been your first point of call in discussing this topic, due to the historical and cultural links being so much more US-UK than US-Sweden). Various denominations are recognised in law and all claim charitable status so can claim money from the government through the gift-aid system.

Your argument that having an established church is financially detrimental to other denominations is not [always] true.


You also speak of a central tenet being that of freedom to choose to accept or reject Christ. What does this have to do with established religion? In the UK, no-one is forced to be Anglican. In Sweden, no-one was forced to be Lutheran. In pre-1905 France, no-one was forced to be Roman Catholic etc...

Please explain how the Church of England is corrupt (the colonial churches breaking from this). You may not agree with all it believes and accepts, but corrupt it is not.

 

[Ringo84]

I don't think that the Church of England is corrupt. I simply think that the government and religion should be separate. There are too many problems associated with mixing church and state. Ringo

 

[Mr Dave]

I don't think that the Church of England is corrupt. I simply think that the government and religion should be separate. There are too many problems associated with mixing church and state. Ringo

Sorry Ringo, wasn't suggesting you'd said that. It was in response to the OP when he said;

A related reason for the separation of church and state is that government and the power seekers it inevitably attracts corrupt religion. This is the primary reason that the colonial churches pressed for the 1st amendments establishment clause.

 

[David Evarts]

Hey Mr. Dave, Let me start by saying that I respect the Anglican via media and from what I've seen of the American Anglican church (Presbyterians), respect their biblical call to social justice. I've also noted that, although the Anglican church still receive favoritism from the British government, which I beleive is to the churches detriment, that Britain now has guarantees of religous freedom. I am including the longer and fuller origional article that I wrote below, as I noted that I actually placed an incomplete (and grammatically messy version here. I was in process of cutting the word count down for potential publication. Among the other churches that are tied to the government of their nations that I admire is the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church. I recognize that state favoritism can offer protection for a church, but ultimately the cost is too high.
Best to you, David

Mr. Dave-
I find it interesting that you use just one former established European church to argue in favour of separation, by claiming that with an established church the other denominations are left to flounder. This is not the case in Great Britain (which I'd have thought would have
been your first point of call in discussing this topic, due to the historical and cultural links being so much more US-UK than US-Sweden). Various denominations are recognised in law and all claim charitable status so can claim money from the government through the gift-aid system.

David-
The Anglican Church could also be a good example for my point. Many of the denominations that were part of the founding of the United States came here specifically to escape church-state repression in the U.K.. Maryland was founded by Catholics looking for an opportunity to freely practice their religion. The Puritans, Quakers, Baptists and a number of Jews were also amongst our earliest European settlers who came specifically to be able to live and worship as their conscience dictated. The history of religous war between Catholics and Anglicans in the UK was pretty atrocious and the persecution of Quakers, Baptists and other non-conformers was also at times awful. Thus, the history of the Anglican church is an example of what can happen when a church or religion becomes part of the state.
Likewise, the Anglican church can be seen as an example of a European church that may have itself have been severely damaged by being a favored state religion. Although the worldwide Anglican communion is thought to be the 4th largest Christian church grouping, the Church of England (measured by active members and attenders, rather than those who may be on the rolls, but are likely to describe themselves as secular people) has been steadily decreasing for many years. This may be due to it's position as a state church. The presence of a state church often corresponds to societies becoming increasingly secular.

Mr. Dave
Your argument that having an established church is financially detrimental to other denominations is not [always] true.

David- I don't think that I argued that or intended to do so.

Mr. Dave-
You also speak of a central tenet being that of freedom to choose to accept or reject Christ. What does this have to do with established religion? In the UK, no-one is forced to be Anglican. In Sweden, no-one was forced to be Lutheran. In pre-1905 France, no-one was forced to be Roman Catholic etc...

David-
Although, no one may currently be forced to accept Christ and a particular denomination in European countries with established religion they have been in the past. The French Catholic church could be particularly brutal and after repeated wars between Huegenots (French protestants) and Catholics, most remaining Huegenots were driven out of France (after the St. Bartholemews day massacre. The history of various levels of oppression in Britain are well recorded. However, even when there is no execution, jail time, loss of work position and such for ones' beleif system and nothing monetary or otherwise to gain from professing a certain beleif, the impression that a "good American", "good Englishmen" or whatever should be of a given beleif impedes ones ability to judge a beleif system entirely on it's own merit and weighs against true freedom to choose. it also impedes the market place of ideas that is necessary for free choice. This is why Christianity shrinks, rather than grows in countries that have some degree of state/ faith entanglement and grows best where there is none.

Mr. Dave-
Please explain how the Church of England is corrupt (the colonial churches breaking from this). You may not agree with all it believes and accepts, but corrupt it is not.[/quote]

David-
I don't have any reason to beleive the Church of England is currently corrupt and regret that it is less vital than it could be were it not attached to the government and weighed down by a history that includes corruption and repression of other faiths. It's a beautiful liturgy and a welcome part of the worldwide family of God. If the church of England wanted to avoid the impression that it is an arm of the government, which will inevitably attract some corrupt politicians (as well as some good ones) and give the impression that the ideas of Christianity can stand on their own without a government prop, it could follow the Swedish church in becoming independent of the government.

Here's the actual full article that I'd written.

For Evangelical Christians. We need to give thanks for the separation of church and state

I think that it’s time we evangelical Christians thank the Lord for the continued existence of the separation of church and state and put some of our time and money into the ongoing fight to preserve this quintessentially American doctrine. It is clear that this national belief, enshrined in the Constitution of the United States as the 1st amendment “establishment clause”, is at least partly responsible for the fact that America can boast of the greatest number of Christians found in any industrial nation.

There are today organizations such as “the Wall Builders” who describe themselves as Christian and patriotic and stand opposed to the separation of church and state. They hope to further Christianity and “turn the nation back to God” by causing the government to favor their version of Christianity. I do believe that we Christians should be involved in our national public discourse, vote our consciences, seek to influence government and participate in the marketplace of ideas. The Bible clearly commands Christians to serve “the least of these,” to cry out to the government on their behalf and condemn the government when it ignores their needs or favors the wealthy and powerful. But, organizations that advocate against church/ state disestablishment are mistaken. In doing so, they are not being patriotic, do not serve to strengthen Christianity and are not in line with historic evangelical Christianity in America. Their view undermines the very principles that have made America a beacon to those seeking freedom of conscience and that have made our nation one in which Christianity has seen an unparalleled flowering. Please allow me to explain.

A central tenet of our evangelical Christianity is that each person must freely choose whether or not to accept, reject or ignore Christ. A true commitment to Christ requires that a person, in full awareness and in good conscience personally decide. We believe that this choice cannot be made for a person by their parents, their church, their government or anyone. We believe that each person is individually responsible to God. A coerced choice is not a choice. A choice made when competing ideas are forbidden is not a free choice. A choice made to curry favor or gain outside benefits is not an honest choice. Free choice requires a market place of ideas from which one can sample. If an idea is true it will stand this test. If it is of God, it will survive. The 1st Amendment, by keeping competing religions and denominations from using the government to gain an unfair or coercive advantage, has allowed free will. One of the reasons that people of other faiths or who are unsure of religion in general are free to become a Christian in America, is that they and we can discuss varying ideas and choose the one that rings most true, without government pressure or favoritism. Only by allowing all of our neighbors the dignity to freely choose their own spirituality or philosophy can we hope for meaningful commitment to what we believe. It is also simply un-neigborly, unloving and disrespectful to attempt to force our views on other folks.

Some of the Results of the open American marketplace for religious and philosophical ideas have been the development and growth of evangelicalism and the fact that over 90% of Christians claim a Christian faith. If our fellow evangelicals seek preferential treatment for our faith from the government, they risk causing the destruction of Christianity in America. European nations have all had a history of state mandated Christian denominations and repression by them. In many European nations a favored denomination still receives financial support and official status from the government today. This has led to suffocating and disregarded churches. It is one of the most important reasons that the majority of modern Europeans are not interested in Christianity. If European Christianity had not been reinvigorated by immigrants from African and other third world countries, it would be largely a museum piece today. The Swedish national church petitioned their government to cease financially or otherwise supporting them in 2000, so that they could begin to grow like American churches. The Norwegian church has noticed the growth and new-found commitment of the Swedish church and has also asked to be untied from their government. Apparently, some European churches recognize the benefits to Christianity of separation of religion from government.
A related reason for the separation of church and state is that government and the power seekers it inevitably attracts tend to corrupt religion. This is one of the primary reasons that the colonial churches pressed so hard for the 1st amendments establishment cause. They did not want their faith to be shamed, co-opted or degraded by politicians and felt that only a church that was self supporting and free of government favoritism could remain pure and holy. Constantine freed Roman Christians from oppression by an officially pagan state, but by making Christianity the state religion and thus controlled by political powers, he also opened the door for terrible corruption, oppression and martyrdom of untold numbers of Christians. I wonder if more Christians have been martyred at the hands of other Christians backed by state favoritism than have ever given their lives for their beliefs to non-Christians. Does anyone doubt that amongst those who seek evangelical control of or finances from the government that there are shameless power mongers? Does anyone doubt that political power can corrupt a pastor or a church? If so, when has human nature changed so drastically? The cost of government endorsement for our faith is that validity of our faith is called into question. This is true even when that endorsement appears relatively innocuous, such as a cross on public land, the ten-commandments displayed, without reference to other legal systems that have contributed to our national system, in a court house, or group prayers led by state employees in a school.
Those who, seemingly unaware that history shows that intermixing government and religion destroys Christianity, call for the abolition or lessening of the separation of church and state often claim that America’s founding fathers intended for America to be a “Christian nation.” They rightly note that the phrase “the separation of church and state” does not appear in the constitution. However, the record is very clear that the founding fathers meant to provide a separation of church and state in order to protect individual liberty and conscience and to protect religions from the destructive effects of state favoritism.
I am a member of a Baptist congregation. Baptists can be rightfully proud that our churches, until recently, were amongst the first and most consistently fierce defenders of separation of church and state. We are also the denomination responsible for the origination of the phrase. Roger Williams, the colonial founder of the Baptist tradition in America, preached forcefully against church-state intermingling. The state of Rhode Island was founded at his urging with a radical colonial charter which specified that “no person within the said colony shall hereafter be in anywise molested or called in question for any difference in opinion on matters of religion.” He warned against God’s people opening “a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world.” He specifically stated that the world he was referring to here was the civil government. When the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to Thomas Jefferson, seeking assurance that the Bill of Rights included a barrier between the government and churches, Thomas Jefferson paraphrased Roger Williams in answering. “I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” Other members of the congress were also clear that their intent was to keep the state and religion independent of each other and this has been supported by the Supreme Court through the course of our history.
Until the last few decades, Baptists and most other American Christian denominations celebrated this wise barrier. I beleive we should return to doing so. On May 16th, 1920, George Washington Truet, who became the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, stood on the capitol steps in Washington D.C. and preached to between 10-15,000 people. He proudly announced that the separation of church and state was “preeminently a Baptist achievement” and the “cheifest contribution that America has made to civilization.”
If you value your church, if you’d like to see people have the opportunity to freely choose Christ and if you prefer liberty for yourself and others, I urge you to join me in defending the 1st Amendment and pledging support for a clear and continued separation of church and state. I’ll join you. I value the liberty of my faith and the liberty of my neighbors to worship God or not as they choose and in the way they choose.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Quote by Clirus
I believe the best Social Justice is when Christians live lives that make Atheists want what Christians have. Then they are accepting Jesus Christ because the want Jesus Christ and not trying to steal from Christians through the Socialism of the Democratic party.

For many years on this forum you have lived a life of announcing your judgments and condemnations of whole groups of people. The latest one, on this post, you have judged the whole Democratic Party as opponents of Jesus Christ and thieves that are stealing from Christians.

Clirus you have been posting on this forum for many years, I do not know of any one on this forum that wants what you have, do you?

 

[Gishin]

If only you could kill them all, right? (after a mock trial, of course)

 

[CTD]

Questions:
1. Who's advocating any national religion for the U.S.?

2. What religion are they trying to establish?

3. Who will appoint the leaders of the official church?

4. What was the official religion of the U.S. 100 years ago?

Anyone care to answer?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Christianity is the national religion of America because America was founded as a Christian Nation. Many times this question has come before congress and every time it has been reaffirmed that America is a Christian Nation.

The United States does not have an official national religion.

America has "In God We Trust" on our money, "Under God" in our pledge of allegiance, "So help me God" before testimony in a court, most oaths of office end with "So help me God" and in the fourth stanza of The Star-Spangled Banner it states "In God is our trust.". Even the Constitution had the following statement.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names

So what?

No one is required to be a Christian, and the state has not established Christianity as an official religion, but America was founded as a Christian Nation.

If it hasn't been established as an official religion then there is hardly any point to call it the national religion, is there?

 

[Gishin]

Christianity is the national religion of America because America was founded as a Christian Nation. Many times this question has come before congress and every time it has been reaffirmed that America is a Christian Nation.

America has "In God We Trust" on our money, "Under God" in our pledge of allegiance, "So help me God" before testimony in a court, most oaths of office end with "So help me God" and in the fourth stanza of The Star-Spangled Banner it states "In God is our trust.". Even the Constitution had the following statement.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

No one is required to be a Christian, and the state has not established Christianity as an official religion, but America was founded as a Christian Nation.

Through the Democratic party, Atheists are doing everything they can to turn America into an Atheistic Nation and most Christians are doing nothing.

The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men (Christians) to do nothing.

Christians must get back into politics and get control of the government. If Christians do not get control of the government, I see a Sodom and Gomorrah situation being established.

No Christians should vote for any Democrat for any office, because the Democratic party supports Socialism and Atheism.

We need a "puke" smiley.

 

[David Evarts]

Wave....... Down with theocracy and inauthentic psuedo-Christianity.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

In Germany, Church and State are separated, yet that separation is not taken to extremes: for example, virtually no one would object to Christmas celebrations in schools or public buildings, religious education (for various religions, and non-religious alternatives such as philosophy or ethics and norms) is part of the curriculum, and so on and so forth.
Granted, you also do not find strange customs such as collective school prayer, pledging allegiance to the flag (which strikes me as a quasi-religious ceremony) or anything of the sort.

 

[Ringo84]

America was founded as a Christian Nation.

America is a Christian Nation.

Nope.

America has "In God We Trust" on our money

Phrases on money don't mean anything.

"Under God" in our pledge of allegiance,

Added in the 50s not because of national piety but as a reaction against "Godless Commies".

"So help me God" before testimony in a court

Where one can choose to take his or her oath on a Bible, a Q'uran, or any other religious book they desire.

n the fourth stanza of The Star-Spangled Banner it states "In God is our trust.". Even the Constitution had the following statement.

A song says it! It must be true!

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

"In the Year of our Lord" was a common phrase in those days.

and the state has not established Christianity as an official religion

Then we're not a "Christian nation".

America was founded as a Christian Nation.

No. It wasn't.

Christians must get back into politics and get control of the government.

I don't think you even care about this country. It's about increasing power and a certain right-wing Christian agenda.
Ringo

 

[David Evarts]

Hey Jane, that sounds great. I realize that Germany has a history of religous (as well as non-religous) wars and persecution. I hope and pray that reasonable separation of church and state opens the door for a rennaisance of faith in Germany and that religous persecution (wether for or against any religous or philosophical beleif) never sneaks back in. Go Germany!