Separation of Church and State – Answering Critics

[Dale]

This seems to be something that pro-secular/liberal Christians do not like to talk about too much. We would know nothing about Christ if not for 1000 years of Christendom, i.e. a Christian kingdom. Yet according to Protestant American mythology, the holy spirit was not really allowed to flourish until the rise of post-Enlightenment individualistic evangelism.

Yet we see the fruit of modern Evangelism... a society dominated by blasphemy, abortion, p0rn0graphy, homosexuality, emasculation of men and destruction of families, etc. to name a few...

On one hand the modern Evangelical says "Yes, it's so sad the world is fallen, etc." and on the other hand they passionately support the revolutionary liberal system that gives rise to these structures of sin, immediately going on the attack when they hear phrases like "Christian nationalism"...

There are two faiths at work here. One is a faith in Jesus. One is a Hegelian, revolutionary faith in "Liberty" with expressions like "The Free World" and "Sacred Democracy"....

Lifepsyop: << On one hand the modern Evangelical says "Yes, it's so sad the world is fallen, etc." and on the other hand ... >>

I don’t know what a “modern Evangelical” is.


Lifepsyop: << There are two faiths at work here. One is a faith in Jesus. One is a Hegelian, revolutionary faith in "Liberty" with expressions like "The Free World" and "Sacred Democracy" >>

I have never heard anyone use the words “Sacred Democracy.” You say that Hegelians are opposed to Jesus. Neither Thomas Jefferson nor James Madison were influenced by Hegel.

 

[lifepsyop]

I don’t know what a “modern Evangelical” is.

Well, as far as a modern American Evangelical, it's someone who believes the American revolution, the U.S. Constitution, and republicanism, democracy, and Liberalism represent God's liberation of humanity from tyranny.. Evangelicals actually do believe in a liberal or progressive form of Christian nationalism.. (think Battle Hymn of the Republic) but they believe God favors the spirit of democracy and the secular framework of the United States. Places like the Lincoln Memorial are semi-sacred temples to the modern American Evangelical.

Modern American Evangelicals tend to primarily focus on the individual experience of the believer because this is what most aligns with the Enlightenment values of the American founding fathers regarding the veneration of individual liberty. They reject Christian nationalism because it violates a countering faith in the classical Liberalism of the founders.

I have never heard anyone use the words “Sacred Democracy.”

It's been used a lot lately by some prominent figures. But many Americans imply it by their veneration of things like the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution as sacred documents that have liberated humanity.

 

[ralliann]

When you say a piece of paper is the only thing protecting your country from authoritarianism, it kind of sounds like you're treating it as a sacred document.

That the bill of rights declares the recognition inalienable rights given men "by God", they are recognized as sacred. In the people recognizing God given, no man has the power or ability to take them away.

Your condescension aside, the US constitution won't protect you from anything.

If the recognition of rights by God remain, we are protected from them being taken away by men.

It won't protect you, for instance, from a government that forces people to lockdown (closing churches but keeping bottle stores open) over a disease which is killed less than one percent of the population. Nor will it allow you the freedom to live in a Christian society since it will always undermine a Christian society as it is understood today, it's a document which enforces secularism and removes Christianity from the public space.

It won't protect you from denying another's God given right..... What are the rights of each individual in this case? Those who choose to go to Church, might be denied to other places, so as to infringe on the rights of those who lock down...

Americans have changed since the times of their founders and if a system or constitution has been corrupted or is no longer beneficial to the group to which you belong, why would you intellectually commit yourself to defending it?

It should not change, despite peoples views changing. Don't deny each persons rights. They are God given.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This seems to be something that pro-secular/liberal Christians do not like to talk about too much. We would know nothing about Christ if not for 1000 years of Christendom, i.e. a Christian kingdom. Yet according to Protestant American mythology, the holy spirit was not really allowed to flourish until the rise of post-Enlightenment individualistic evangelism.

Yet we see the fruit of modern Evangelism... a society dominated by blasphemy, abortion, p0rn0graphy, homosexuality, emasculation of men and destruction of families, etc. to name a few...

On one hand the modern Evangelical says "Yes, it's so sad the world is fallen, etc." and on the other hand they passionately support the revolutionary liberal system that gives rise to these structures of sin, immediately going on the attack when they hear phrases like "Christian nationalism"...

There are two faiths at work here. One is a faith in Jesus. One is a Hegelian, revolutionary faith in "Liberty" with expressions like "The Free World" and "Sacred Democracy"....

You put it into words much more effectively than I can. It is a question I notice American Christians or secular Christians have a difficult time answering because they have so bought into the progressive/enlightenment values they were raised with. They recognize the incompatibility of Christianity before the enlightenment with the current system and they choose the latter, a system which has caused or at the very least has helped the decline of Christianity in the public square.

I guess I can't be too hard on them as I used to hold the exact same opinions regarding liberty, equality and democracy but it was an investigation of history and actually thinking about what Christianity is and valuing it which caused me to reject these radical secular notions of liberty. They don't seem to understand that liberty is not unlimited and is always limited by the equalizing force they wish to project on society.

I could imagine a hypothetical Christian society or village somewhere, one which had laws, customs and traditions in place to ensure that Christianity was the standard. Promiscuity socially shamed, Blasphemy is not tolerated, they regulate who is allowed in in order to be integrated and who is rejected. If someone violates the rules they are excommunicated, their property in the village is sold and they are forced to leave. The modern American Christian sees such a society as repressive and demands that all it's standards and laws be removed to accommodate forces which would undermine the Christian character of the town or society. Progressively things which were banned or were socially unacceptable are introduced and things which were standard are removed (like public schools teaching Christianity and encouraging prayer) and then fifty years later they are shocked to see how the town society is no longer Christian. They pat themselves on the back and say it was inevitable when it wasn't. Of course that's the story of Europe and the west at large isn't it? These progressive reforms have only but undermined Christianity and any attempt to return to that standard is not allowed.

You're free to live in non-Christian society, but you have no freedom whatsoever to want and desire a Christian society. Only Americanism is acceptable and that means the complete freedom of the individual except when he violates the true and sanctified law of the US Constitution. Which kind of begs the question, why if you believe Christianity is such a negative force in society, why do you believe it? If the entire history of Christianity was a mistake up until America came into existence and purified it, why did God allow such a horrible and evil system to dominate the West?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That the bill of rights declares the recognition inalienable rights given men "by God", they are recognized as sacred. In the people recognizing God given, no man has the power or ability to take them away.

I kind of think they do have the right to violate rights at least if the justification can be made. There used to be a right to the freedom of association in the USA but that no longer exists and you are not free to associate with whom you want because of the civil rights law in the USA. But you're sort of assuming this Idea that the rights mentioned in the bill of rights are God given when that is not really evidenced from Christianity. There are no rights in nature and we as Christians only have the law of God and our own internal sense of right and wrong to go by when it comes to deducing morality.

Rights as envisioned by Americans are in reality a fiction.

It won't protect you from denying another's God given right..... What are the rights of each individual in this case? Those who choose to go to Church, might be denied to other places, so as to infringe on the rights of those who lock down...

During lockdowns did Christians legitimately have no right to go to Church? Even if said Church took precautions? But they had every right to buy alcohol and food?

It should not change, despite peoples views changing. Don't deny each persons rights. They are God given.

I deny myself the Idea of rights as largely fictional and always understand that there are exceptions to these so called rights depending on the person. No human system is perfect and the US will always have a changing understanding of what these rights are. Rights as understood by your founders have radically changed since the time of the founding of your country.

 

[ralliann]

I kind of think they do have the right to violate rights at least if the justification can be made.

Who is they? Nobody should have the right. To be sure you can find historically non Christian rights being violated by Christians. Corrections of this has also occurred because of the constitution. Those abuses occurred because they did not keep the constitution at that point in history.

There used to be a right to the freedom of association in the USA but that no longer exists and you are not free to associate with whom you want because of the civil rights law in the USA.

Yes, and that is a problem.

But you're sort of assuming this Idea that the rights mentioned in the bill of rights are God given when that is not really evidenced from Christianity.

Again these things were corrected and changed to conform to the constitution. The constitution not being followed or enforced is another subject.

There are no rights in nature and we as Christians only have the law of God and our own internal sense of right and wrong to go by when it comes to deducing morality.

The law of God? The constitution does not enforce the law of God on men. We do that ourselves as Christians. The constitution gives certain rights acknowledge from God, that we cannot altar upon all men, Christian or not.

Rights as envisioned by Americans are in reality a fiction.

Not fiction, just not enforced in times of history. Rights are only as good, as those who enforce them.

During lockdowns did Christians legitimately have no right to go to Church? Even if said Church took precautions? But they had every right to buy alcohol and food?

I deny myself the Idea of rights as largely fictional and always understand that there are exceptions to these so called rights depending on the person. No human system is perfect and the US will always have a changing understanding of what these rights are. Rights as understood by your founders have radically changed since the time of the founding of your country.

Exactly. It is not the constitution's lack, rather human lack of keeping it. When men were willing to enforce it, it began to change.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Who is they? Nobody should have the right. To be sure you can find historically non Christian rights being violated by Christians. Corrections of this has also occurred because of the constitution. Those abuses occurred because they did not keep the constitution at that point in history.

Rights such as what? Gay marriage? Blasphemy? To castrate children? What modern rights would you prefer Christians have protected?

Yes, and that is a problem.

And you'll do nothing to protect said 'right.'

Again these things were corrected and changed to conform to the constitution. The constitution not being followed or enforced is another subject.

If it's not actually being followed the Constitution is a dead letter. You should approach politics as they are, not as you'd wish them to be. Then you can be actually effective.

The law of God? The constitution does not enforce the law of God on men. We do that ourselves as Christians. The constitution gives certain rights acknowledge from God, that we cannot altar upon all men, Christian or not.

What is higher, the US constitution or the law of God?

Not fiction, just not enforced in times of history. Rights are only as good, as those who enforce them.

So the rights enumerated in the US constitution always existed? It just took the founders to reveal them? As if by divine inspiration?

Exactly. It is not the constitution's lack, rather human lack of keeping it. When men were willing to enforce it, it began to change.

Why would any Christian want to defend a document which has been used to undermine the very idea of the Christian society?

 

[ralliann]

Rights such as what? Gay marriage? Blasphemy? To castrate children? What modern rights would you prefer Christians have protected?

Freedom to exercise my faith. And not have it infringed

And you'll do nothing to protect said 'right.'

What is higher, the US constitution or the law of God?

So the rights enumerated in the US constitution always existed? It just took the founders to reveal them? As if by divine inspiration?

Why would any Christian want to defend a document which has been used to undermine the very idea of the Christian society?

You have no right to force your faith on me, nor do I you. You have no right to physically harm someone, neither do I.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Freedom to exercise my faith. And not have it infringed

So Aztecs should have had the right to practice their religion?

You have no right to force your faith on me, nor do I you. You have not right to physically harm someone.

Well I'm not talking about forcing people to believe anything. I would however expect people to conform themselves to Christian societal standards if they were living in a Christian civilisation. This means that if you are a Muslim you do not have the right to marry 3 women in a Christisn country. Is that wrong?

 

[ralliann]

So Aztecs should have had the right to practice their religion?

As long as their religion does not harm others,, sure.

Well I'm not talking about forcing people to believe anything. I would however expect people to conform themselves to Christian societal standards if they were living in a Christian civilisation.

Right it is not even Christian, it is Natural law, all men are capable of understanding.

This means that if you are a Muslim you do not have the right to marry 3 women in a Christisn country. Is that wrong?

No, it is not wrong.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

As long as their religion does not harm others,, sure.

So we operate on the basis of the no harm principle as Christians? That is a secular liberal moral code?

Right it is not even Christian, it is Natural law, all men are capable of understanding.

No, it is not wrong.

Islamic polygamy doesn't hurt anyone though and can be freely entered into. Why should it be restricted? In fact why should polygamy be restricted at all?

 

[Niels]

Strange subject, this... in general, I mean, not the thread.

Strange to me because back in the days, there were always an abundance of "Comparative Region" classes... we even studied religions in grade school. We had to do reports on each "major religion" then did contrast and comparison papers. We even went on field trips to various religious sites and places of worship.

Just saying, the teaching of religious things was considered both useful and taught us respect.

Agreed. I'm in my 40s, and that was the norm where I grew up in the Northeast. People held different beliefs, but there was always an emphasis on mutual respect. Many of my friends were Jewish, a few were Buddhist, etc. That was considered normal. Not something to raise eyebrows over.

The separation of church and state was emphasized as freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion. The classy way to handle differences is to be understanding of each other. Like you said, that's both useful and respectful. Of course groups have their own interests, but nobody is forcing us to share the same beliefs or lack thereof.

 

[ralliann]

So we operate on the basis of the no harm principle as Christians? That is a secular liberal moral code?

We operate on law like all nations have done. What we as believers hold for morality might be different, in our behavior.

Islamic polygamy doesn't hurt anyone though and can be freely entered into. Why should it be restricted? In fact why should polygamy be restricted at all?

Did you even read my post? I am not against polygamy. What difference it makes in the moral state of the country at this point.

 

[lifepsyop]

Freedom to exercise my faith. And not have it infringed

Christians have had that freedom for 2000 years. You didn't win it in the American revolution, and today you could easily lose your livelihood for expressing the 'intolerant' parts of the New Testament.

You have no right to force your faith on me, nor do I you. You have no right to physically harm someone, neither do I.

Well to varying degrees, you are indeed forced to abide by the Liberal faith.

This places individual liberty as the highest principle. This is a profoundly anti-Christian ideology when fully realized.

Individual liberty is good when it is the natural fruit of a Godly society. (for example, when someone has the liberty to walk down a city street at night without fearing for their livelihood, when criminals are afraid to commit violent crimes because of the swift judgment they would face.)

However, when Individual Liberty itself becomes the ultimate goal, it leads to societal degeneration and also the loss of liberty.

 

[Dale]

Well, as far as a modern American Evangelical, it's someone who believes the American revolution, the U.S. Constitution, and republicanism, democracy, and Liberalism represent God's liberation of humanity from tyranny.. Evangelicals actually do believe in a liberal or progressive form of Christian nationalism.. (think Battle Hymn of the Republic) but they believe God favors the spirit of democracy and the secular framework of the United States. Places like the Lincoln Memorial are semi-sacred temples to the modern American Evangelical.

Modern American Evangelicals tend to primarily focus on the individual experience of the believer because this is what most aligns with the Enlightenment values of the American founding fathers regarding the veneration of individual liberty. They reject Christian nationalism because it violates a countering faith in the classical Liberalism of the founders.



It's been used a lot lately by some prominent figures. But many Americans imply it by their veneration of things like the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution as sacred documents that have liberated humanity.

Lifepsyop: “Evangelicals actually do believe in a liberal or progressive form of Christian nationalism.. (think Battle Hymn of the Republic) but they believe God favors the spirit of democracy and the secular framework of the United States.”

Where I come from, ultraconservative southerners would be baffled by your claim that liberals are the ones who listen to The Battle Hymn of the Republic.


Lifepsyop on “Sacred Democracy”: “It's been used a lot lately by some prominent figures.”

Could you give an example? You’re the one who brought the subject up.


On liberation from tyranny, freedom isn’t a bad word in the Bible.

I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts.
Psalm 119:45 NIV

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to
my teaching, you are really my disciples.
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
John 8:31-32 NIV

But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives
freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has
heard, but doing it — he will be blessed in what he does.
James 1:25 NIV

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law
that gives freedom,
because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone
who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
James 2:12-13 NIV

Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up
for evil; live as servants of God.
I Peter 2:16 NIV

 

[ralliann]

Christians have had that freedom for 2000 years. You didn't win it in the American revolution, and today you could easily lose your livelihood for expressing the 'intolerant' parts of the New Testament.

The discussion concerns this nation and it's constitution.

Well to varying degrees, you are indeed forced to abide by the Liberal faith.

Exactly. They do not care about the constitution. They want to infringe on those they disagree with.

This places individual liberty as the highest principle. This is a profoundly anti-Christian ideology when fully realized.

They don't value individual liberty. They do not want religious freedom to those whom they disagree

Individual liberty is good when it is the natural fruit of a Godly society. (for example, when someone has the liberty to walk down a city street at night without fearing for their livelihood, when criminals are afraid to commit violent crimes because of the swift judgment they would face.)

This is natural law.

However, when Individual Liberty itself becomes the ultimate goal, it leads to societal degeneration and also the loss of liberty.

No, when liberty is truly desired we have religious freedom.

 

[Tuur]

When you say a piece of paper is the only thing protecting your country from authoritarianism, it kind of sounds like you're treating it as a sacred document. Your condescension aside, the US constitution won't protect you from anything. It won't protect you, for instance, from a government that forces people to lockdown (closing churches but keeping bottle stores open) over a disease which is killed less than one percent of the population. Nor will it allow you the freedom to live in a Christian society since it will always undermine a Christian society as it is understood today, it's a document which enforces secularism and removes Christianity from the public space.

Americans have changed since the times of their founders and if a system or constitution has been corrupted or is no longer beneficial to the group to which you belong, why would you intellectually commit yourself to defending it?

A New Zealander lectures an American about the American's system of government, and when the American attempts to politely explained to the New Zealander how things are in the US, gets called condescending for his trouble. Nice.

If you've lived your entire life as other than a US citizen, you may wish to consider than a US citizen may know more about what's going on in his country than someone nearly half a globe away. If you're a US expatriate, then that's a different situation. Yet in the portion quoted above, you cited pandemic restrictions apparently without realizing that these were done on the state, county/parish, and municipal levels rather than the federal. You may wish to consider that there's a reason why this is so. Or not. It's up to you.

You may also wish to consider that if Americans are so changed that what they were two centuries ago, what of humanity over a period ten times as long? It is also your contention that humanity has radically changed?

 

[PloverWing]

There used to be a right to the freedom of association in the USA but that no longer exists and you are not free to associate with whom you want because of the civil rights law in the USA.

To my American ears, this sounds like you're complaining about the ways that US civil rights laws have made racial segregation illegal. Is that really what you meant to say?

 

[lifepsyop]

Lifepsyop: “Evangelicals actually do believe in a liberal or progressive form of Christian nationalism.. (think Battle Hymn of the Republic) but they believe God favors the spirit of democracy and the secular framework of the United States.”

Where I come from, ultraconservative southerners would be baffled by your claim that liberals are the ones who listen to The Battle Hymn of the Republic.

I'm referring to classical Liberals - people who venerate individual liberty and believe documents like the Declaration of Independence are sacred.

The Battle Hymn marks a particular moment when the United States government is considered to be marching as God's warrior in the world. This is why today in the 21st century you have Evangelical Christians supporting bombing people overseas and overthrowing governments in the name of Democracy. America is believed to be the vehicle of universal revolutionary liberation in the world.

Lifepsyop on “Sacred Democracy”: “It's been used a lot lately by some prominent figures.”

Could you give an example? You’re the one who brought the subject up.

Recently, the current POTUS made a passionate speech stressing that phrase.

On liberation from tyranny, freedom isn’t a bad word in the Bible.

Yes, freedom in Christ.

The apostles actually repeatedly encourage Christians to honor the king or the emperor, not rebel against him. This is another touchy subject for American Christians because every year we celebrate an armed revolt against a King.

 

[lifepsyop]

The discussion concerns this nation and it's constitution.

Exactly. They do not care about the constitution. They want to infringe on those they disagree with.

The American revolution and the US constitution are products of the liberal faith of the Enlightenment era. Today's "woke" liberals simply see them as stepping stones towards a greater expression of liberation. Both the woke liberals and your average conservative Evangelical agree in their embrace of such revolutionary ideology in the name of individual liberty.