Separation of Church and State – Answering Critics

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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

And what is the law the US operates on? What does it affect and how does it shape society? For instance, you're consistent that you don't care about polygamy because that is consistent with your secular liberal principles, but such a polygamy if it is practiced (and we're seeing it practiced more openly in modern society) can only weaken Christian notions of monogamy.

My issue with your perspective, when you essentially outlaw a Christian moral perspective from law is that you invite the dechristianization of society because the laws of a society matter and have a top down affect. My question for you, since you believe in the absolute supremacy of the US constitution as a liberal secular document which must be maintained above all, is how do Christians as a community actually thrive in said system? When said system does everything it can to encourage behavior which is antithetical to Christianity and prevents Christians from forming communities which are allowed to govern themselves?

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.

I notice this common attitude amongst Americans who do not like their government being criticized by non-Americans. As if America was an Island and not a global super power that regularly invades countries, spreads it's culture of decadence and immorality globally and undermines Christianity. Why can't a New Zealander, one who is not particularly nationalist or cares about even his own government, criticize America?

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.

I can see the same trends in teh USA as I can in the rest of the western world. If you think Christianity is strong in the USA and isn't a fading force due to the secularization you support and the liberal secular interpretation of the constitution then please explain to me how I am wrong. It's not hard to see how law and society in the USA has changed since the founding, one which largely encouraged Christian communities to thrive and act according to their moral laws and how these have been stripped away. Getting rid of prayer in public school for instance, the hostility towards Christianity from elite circles in the USA. Am I imagining these things and Christianity is as strong as it ever was?

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?

Humanity has radically changed and is always in the process of changing, at least culturally and even biologically. It's foolish to think for instance that New Zealanders are the same as they were a hundred years ago, they aren't and the same is true of America. Both societies have seen the decline of Christianity as a public force largely due to the development of enlightenment liberalism which stresses freedom from said force of Christianity.

Things change and clinging to a piece of paper instead of dealing with the here and now of a political situation will leave you unable to address the reality of a situation.

 

[com7fy8]

It can be only as good as the character and ability of the ones who use it.

There are ones claiming to be Christians who are upset that the Constitution is used to cancel them. But what would they be doing if they had the power?

There are ones who would cancel me.

There are ones who are part of a pro-Israel political thing, using Christian culture.

Jesus used the situation that He had.

 

[Dale]

D.D. Eisenhower did the American nation a huge disservice when he appointed Earl Warren as chief justice of the supreme court.
Up until 1962, there was no problem saying or singing a prayer in US schools.
The court's reasoning on the banning of prayer in schools was flawed. The first amendment of the US constitution guarantees freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. It bans the establishment of any church which was not an issue.
And, of course, it was also a matter of schools and education which is in the jurisdiction of the states and not the federal government.

John G: “The court's reasoning on the banning of prayer in schools was flawed. The first amendment of the US constitution guarantees freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.”

I have heard the slogan, “It’s freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion,” in a Baptist church and I’m sure it has been used by others as well. Like it or not, the First Amendment does effectively offer freedom from religion.

As I tried to explain in the OP, if you want to know what the First Amendment, written by James Madison, means by “freedom of religion,” then read the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. As Thomas Jefferson said in the VSRF, religious coercion only leads to hypocrisy.

Many Americans, in 1962, and today, thought the Lord’s Prayer was (or is) noncontroversial. Yet there are many translations of the Bible. The phrase usually translated “forgive us our trespasses” has been translated at least three different ways that I know of. Traditionally Baptists preferred to call “the Lord’s Prayer” the Model Prayer and emphasized that it was not intended to be recited but to serve as a model for how to construct a prayer. Not everyone believes in the Divinity of Jesus. Some Americans are Jewish, some are Unitarian, and so forth.

 

[Dale]

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.



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.

Lifepsyop: “Christians have had that freedom [to exercise faith] for 2000 years. You didn't win it in the American revolution …”

Maybe you should read some religious history. Do you know anything about the persecution of Quakers in England? They were often arrested and they didn’t always come out of jail alive.

Pope John XII had four Spiritual Franciscans burned at the stake on May 7, 1318. He excommunicated the rest of the Spiritual Franciscans. Burning people at the stake for their religious beliefs isn’t religious freedom

Pope Innocent III placed England under an Interdict, closing the churches in England. The Interdict lasted from March 23, 1208 to July 3, 1214. This is only one example of an Interdict, it was used on other occasions. Again, this isn’t religious freedom.

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

It is often better to say what you do believe in than what you don’t believe in.

If you don’t believe in liberty then what do you believe in? Monarchy? Dictatorship? Oligarchy? I don’t get it.

Sources
https://www.executedtoday.com/2012/05/07/1318-fraticelli-marseilles-john-xxii/
and
When England was under Interdict - Medievalists.net

 

[Yarddog]

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.


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.

God doesn't give us the right of association, either. We are to treat all people with love, regardless of their race, place in society, etc... So the Civil Rights laws are God's message.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

God doesn't give us the right of association, either. We are to treat all people with love, regardless of their race, place in society, etc... So the Civil Rights laws are God's message.

I can actually agree that God doesn't give us the right to associate but what I can't agree is that civil rights law is God's message. If that were the case, Christians have been guilty of a horrendous sin for nearly 1900, actually 2000, years in how they directly interacted with others. That is we do not associate with everyone, we exclude (excommunicate) and have strict rules for who can fully participate.

Can you explain how Christians had it so wrong?

 

[Yarddog]

I can actually agree that God doesn't give us the right to associate but what I can't agree is that civil rights law is God's message. If that were the case, Christians have been guilty of a horrendous sin for nearly 1900, actually 2000, years in how they directly interacted with others. That is we do not associate with everyone, we exclude (excommunicate) and have strict rules for who can fully participate.

Can you explain how Christians had it so wrong?

You are correct, Christians have been guilty of horrendous sin for 2000 years. People are weak.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You are correct, Christians have been guilty of horrendous sin for 2000 years. People are weak.

Let's examine this. Christians for most of their history have established communities which did not embody the principles of civil rights. Christians did not care about treating all peoples equally insofar as how they were treated in society. They recognized a preeminence of Christian peoples within Christian realms over non-Christians. This is what caused Christians outlaw Paganism and make such practices socially unacceptable.

Why didn't the early Christians understand the Gospel as you understand it if civil rights law is inherently Christian and a divine ordinance by God?

 

[Yarddog]

Let's examine this. Christians for most of their history have established communities which did not embody the principles of civil rights. Christians did not care about treating all peoples equally insofar as how they were treated in society. They recognized a preeminence of Christian peoples within Christian realms over non-Christians. This is what caused Christians outlaw Paganism and make such practices socially unacceptable.

Why didn't the early Christians understand the Gospel as you understand it if civil rights law is inherently Christian and a divine ordinance by God?

Would you agree that scripture tells us to treat others as you want to be treated. Nothing in scripture allows us to treat others any different based on outward appearance. We are also called to love our enemies as we love ourselves. That being the case, that is the purpose of the Civil Rights laws.That Christians failed in the past does not excuse us, today.

 

[Tuur]

I notice this common attitude amongst Americans who do not like their government being criticized by non-Americans. As if America was an Island and not a global super power that regularly invades countries, spreads it's culture of decadence and immorality globally and undermines Christianity. Why can't a New Zealander, one who is not particularly nationalist or cares about even his own government, criticize America?

Not criticize America: Tell Americans how they should conduct their own affairs. You don't like America? Fine. Want to say "Yankee go home?" Go for it. Tell Americans how they should conduct their internal business? That's like walking into the house of worship of a different denomination and telling everyone there doctrine is wrong. If you want a secular example, I don't think Ray Bradbury appreciated students at Call Fullerton telling him he was wrong about what a book he wrote was about.

Your post, however, raises an interesting point. You've stated that you don't even care about your own government, yet here you are concerned about the US Constitution. Interesting thing, that.

 

[Dale]

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.


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.

Ignatius: “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.”

I’m not sure how much you know about segregation, desegregation and integration in the US since 1940. You say that civil rights laws limit freedom of association but it could easily be the other way around. If you own a store, you could make money by selling to both white people and black people, but local law or community pressure could force you to do otherwise, under segregation.

The US military was segregated in WWII but in 1947, President Harry Truman signed an Executive Order telling the military to desegregate. There would be no separate units for black soldiers. You could interpret this in various ways. Harry Truman was from the midwest, a very conservative part of the country, but he was not from the Deep South, where segregation was most ingrained.

 

[Dale]

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.


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.

Ignatius: “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.”

No rights in nature? Apparently you don’t believe in natural law. When Pope Paul VI released his decree banning birth control, he based it on natural law.

 

[The Barbarian]

Wallbuilders confuses the issue a bit. I don’t believe any school has told students that they can’t say a private prayer, or grace, before lunch. A student choosing to pray before lunch is not the same thing as a teacher requiring students to recite a specific prayer out loud, and in unison.

It's difficult to believe that those people don't understand that while schools permit students to pray; the law doesn't allow the school to enforce prayer. And that's what they really want. It's not freedom worship or not worship that they want. They want the power to impose their prayers on schoolchildren.

My daughter was with Fellowship of Christian Athletes. She prayed with her friends publicly before school and privately during school. No one tried to stop her.

 

[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"....

Lifepsy: << 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 mention the Hegelians, who are followers of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1830). Hegel was German, and Germany was nowhere close to being a democracy at that time, or even unified. Hegel believed in constitutional monarchy, which is not my idea of freedom.

I have never read Hegel. I have read Soren Kierkegaard, who spends a lot of time denouncing Hegel.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not the incident I was looking for, but found this:

Principal apologizes after telling students they couldn't pray in Va. school hallway

AMELIA Co., Va. (WSET) -- A principal in Amelia County is facing backlash after she allegedly threatened to punish students for praying in the hallway.Students said it happened Thursday toward the end of the school day when eight students held hands and pr

wset.com

The incident I recall was a student who was reprimanded by a teacher for praying thanks before eating. There were enough such incidents that, during the Clinton Administration, the Federal government issued guidelines to clear up confusion on what was permitted and what wasn't.

I would say the teacher should’ve been reprimanded because the student is not a government employee and therefore not forbidden to openly discuss religious topics.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Actually, that was the issue. Insofar as public schools are a part of the government, if a teacher leads a class in prayer, then, for those few minutes, the government is requiring the students to participate in whatever religion the prayer represents.

Only if it’s mandatory for everyone to participate. If it’s not mandatory for everyone to participate then it’s not requiring anything of the students.

 

[The Barbarian]

The rule is that students may openly pray unless they disrupt the educational functions of the school. So if they were blocking the hallways, or becoming late to class, they'd be out of line. Otherwise not.

 

[Merrill]

On a related-note, the biggest issue facing the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment, are situations where the government (either local, state, or federal) can infringe upon religious liberty in certain circumstances

I will argue that precedent set forth in previous decades essentially nullifies the free-exercise clause --which is a big problem

During the pandemic, states reacted with various laws, orders, and statutes designed to limit religious gatherings, or close all churches. Maryland explicitly ordered churches to close, while states like Texas made a distinction between "essential" and "non-essential" services, and ultimately declared churches essential, thus giving them some ability to operate. Nevertheless, churches nationwide were shuttered in early 2020

The justification for these actions were based on some SCOTUS rulings in previous decades, and specifically the statement by the court "Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

this idea of a neutral law that applies evenly can supersede the free-exercise clause is highly problematic

another avenue state authorities took was declaring emergency action in order to free themselves from Constitutional requirements

both of these justifications are legally wrong, based on:

1. The supremacy clause of the Constitution (Article VI). A state cannot arbitrarily pass a law that infringes om the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.

2. There is no concept of neutrality in the Bill of Rights. A state cannot pass a law that removes the right to trial for all citizens of Maryland, based on some frivolous foundation, and declare that it is a valid law because it applies to everyone --that is complete nonsense.

3. A state emergency is not a national emergency --and even though a national emergency was declared during the early days of the pandemic, the president did not suspend the Constitution and assume emergency powers. A state cannot declare an emergency and circumvent the Constitution (see #1)

Either the First Amendment means what it says, or it doesn't. If a virus with a 99% survival rate can lead to actions by states that circumvent the free-exercise clause, states effectively shutter houses of worship for virtually any reason, and at any time

 

[lifepsyop]

Lifepsy: << 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 mention the Hegelians, who are followers of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1830). Hegel was German, and Germany was nowhere close to being a democracy at that time, or even unified. Hegel believed in constitutional monarchy, which is not my idea of freedom.

Hegel was trying to capture the spirit of the liberal revolution that was spreading over the world from America and France and others, about how this revolutionary faith splitting away from the monarchical hierarchy, represented the world transcending into a new age of spirituality.

This is basically how American Evangelicals think when it comes to 1776, the U.S. Constitution, Abraham Lincoln, and Post-WW2, Post-Cold War America. They essentially believe in the sacredness of the liberal revolution inaugurated by the Founders, and the spread of Liberalism/Democracy around the world. They believe that Christianity and American Liberty are basically synonymous. Wherever Theocracy or Monarchy is smashed, so the Gospel flows more freely as individuals are free to live and work and shop however they desire.

The American Evangelical believes the liberal society, freed from any hierarchy of a king or a priest, the modern age of enlightenment, they essentially believe this is History sanctified... mostly thanks to the American revolution, and the destruction of other monarchies around the world throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, paving the way for a global marketplace of goods and ideas for the individual consumer.

It's a kind of unspoken form of American Dispensationalism.. That living under a King was tyranny and God wanted to enlighten the world through the ideology of the American revolution, and further spread "sacred liberty" through the global domination of America after WW2.

 

[The Barbarian]

I will argue that precedent set forth in previous decades essentially nullifies the free-exercise clause --which is a big problem

During the pandemic, states reacted with various laws, orders, and statutes designed to limit religious gatherings, or close all churches. Maryland explicitly ordered churches to close, while states like Texas made a distinction between "essential" and "non-essential" services, and ultimately declared churches essential, thus giving them some ability to operate. Nevertheless, churches nationwide were shuttered in early 2020

Secular law bans human sacrifice, too, even if the victim agrees. That's an extreme case of the free-exercise clause being abridged, of course. The question always comes down to "am I free to do what I want, even if it might hurt someone else?"

And it's a balancing act in cases like this.