Church Doctrine on Separation of Church and State

[BroIgnatius]

Catholics are not to believe in the Separation of Church and State. This concept is also not in the Constitution and is a legal fiction.

 

[Shane2336]

So...you're saying the Catholic Church desires to be regulated by the government?
Because that's what Jefferson meant in his letter in 1802. This isn't a concept to keep religion out of government, but to keep the government from regulating the practice of religion.

 

[pdudgeon]

(the video is temporarily unavailable)

 

[BroIgnatius]

So...you're saying the Catholic Church desires to be regulated by the government?
Because that's what Jefferson meant in his letter in 1802. This isn't a concept to keep religion out of government, but to keep the government from regulating the practice of religion.

No, I am not saying that the Church desires to be regulated by the government. Just the opposite. See the video. I fix it so you should be able to see the video now.

 

[Shane2336]

Catholics are not to believe in the Separation of Church and State

Okay, I was confused by the wording here. It seemed you were saying Catholics do not support the separation.

 

[Resha Caner]

Lutherans have the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, but it's different than the American version of Separation of Church and State. It assumes God is involved in all vocations but that the job of a pastor is to be a pastor and the job of a governor is to be a governor. The jobs don't overlap in their responsibilities.

Though the phrase itself is not Constitutional, it is a common interpretation of the Establishment clause in the 1st Amendment and always has been. As much as many Christians in America love to make the Constitution some holy document, it has its flaws and the Establishment clause has essentially made religion a powerless ward of the state - far from what I would ever want.

 

[RDKirk]

I understand that Catholic doctrine does not include the concept of separation of Church and State. Catholics does not include the concept of government controlled by Protestant churches, however. There were wars fought in Europe over that issue--the US Founding Fathers intended to avoid those on the American continent.

 

[South Bound]

Catholics are not to believe in the Separation of Church and State. This concept is also not in the Constitution and is a legal fiction.

As Shane pointed out you're letting the other side define the terms "Separation of Church and state" was never meant to regulate or restrict the Church but to keep government out of the affairs of the Church

Separation of Church and state (properly understood) is one of the "Baptist Distinctives" that define Baptists

 

[RDKirk]

As Shane pointed out you're letting the other side define the terms "Separation of Church and state" was never meant to regulate or restrict the Church but to keep government out of the affairs of the Church

Separation of Church and state (properly understood) is one of the "Baptist Distinctives" that define Baptists

Baptists (the Calvinist Baptists) were early on represented in the US by men such as Roger Williams--the founder of the first Baptist congregation in America. Williams' "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience" is the seminal document in America for the separation of Church and State. It's tough slogging to read because all versions I've found are in "King James" English, but it's worthwhile to get the sense of how and why certain denominations were "Separatists." It's in that treatise that Williams coins the phrase "hedge of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the World" that Jefferson would later crib to "wall of separation between Church and State" when writing to the Danbury Baptists.

It's also important to remember that the issue of separation of Church and state was about to come to a violent head in England even as Williams wrote his treatise--and would result in the English Civil War that would see a king assassinated.

The latest Baptist Faith and Message still draws heavily on the basics of Roger Williams for that point.

 

[pdudgeon]

Baptists (the Calvinist Baptists) were early on represented in the US by men such as Roger Williams--the founder of the first Baptist congregation in America. Williams' "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience" is the seminal document in America for the separation of Church and State. It's tough slogging to read because all versions I've found are in "King James" English, but it's worthwhile to get the sense of how and why certain denominations were "Separatists." It's in that treatise that Williams coins the phrase "hedge of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the World" that Jefferson would later crib to "wall of separation between Church and State" when writing to the Danbury Baptists.

It's also important to remember that the issue of separation of Church and state was about to come to a violent head in England even as Williams wrote his treatise--and would result in the English Civil War that would see a king assassinated.

The latest Baptist Faith and Message still draws heavily on the basics of Roger Williams for that point.

it's good to know why this misconception still creeps up today.
thanks for that.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I don't understand why so many Christian opponents to the Establishment Clause seem to implicitly assume that it's abolition would lead to the theocracy of their dreams.

In all likelihood, the end result would be not unlike the Church of England, where theology is subjected to the political zeitgeist of the society therein.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Okay, I was confused by the wording here. It seemed you were saying Catholics do not support the separation.

Correct, the Catholic Church does not support the false and unconstitutional notion of separation of Church and State.

 

[BroIgnatius]

As Shane pointed out you're letting the other side define the terms "Separation of Church and state" was never meant to regulate or restrict the Church but to keep government out of the affairs of the Church

No, I am referring to Separation of Church and State as the Supreme Court invented the definition in 1947. The word "separation" is improper and misleading. Let us use a proper and more accurate word -- "distinction."

Properly understood there is a "distinction" not a "separation" between church and state. The current nonsense is nonsense. The First Amendment was written to prevent a State Church, like the Church of England. It was not written to prevent Christmas trees from display on government property.

In fact, after the enactment of the First Amendment, Jefferson et. al. went to church and worshiped in, I think, the Senate. Christ was preached from the same podium as Senators gave their speeches. Obviously, religious activities on government property was not what Jefferson and other founders thought was prohibited by the First Amendment.

The Catholic Church teaches, and requires all Catholics to believe, that we are to inform the world, including the political world, with our faith and morals. That is the role of the Church Herself. Our faith not only belongs in the Public Square, but we have a duty to bring our faith to the Public Square.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't understand why so many Christian opponents to the Establishment Clause seem to implicitly assume that it's abolition would lead to the theocracy of their dreams.

In all likelihood, the end result would be not unlike the Church of England, where theology is subjected to the political zeitgeist of the society therein.

Roger Williams, in "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience," marches through history to show that abolition of the Establishment Clause will definitely have that result, each and every time. We see it now in Islamic societies. It's the nature of man--a material City of God cannot rise in a fallen world where nations exist and thrive through violence and extortion.

 

[RDKirk]

No, I am referring to Separation of Church and State as the Supreme Court invented the definition in 1947. The word "separation" is improper and misleading. Let us use a proper and more accurate word -- "distinction."

Properly understood there is a "distinction" not a "separation" between church and state. The current nonsense is nonsense. The First Amendment was written to prevent a State Church, like the Church of England. It was not written to prevent Christmas trees from display on government property.

Actually, it would. There is a difference between using government funds to support a particular religion--which is an "establishment" --and permitting persons of a religion to practice their religion while coincidentally being on government property.

The military reaches a balance by providing religious facilities for use by persons of any religion. The base chapels are able to transform (hidden doors, rotating cabinets, curtains, et cetera) to serve as anything from a mosque on Friday to a synagogue on Saturday, and then alternate between Masses and Gospel services on Sunday.

So if government property is used for Christmas displays during Christmas season, then it must be open for other religious displays on their holidays.

In fact, after the enactment of the First Amendment, Jefferson et. al. went to church and worshiped in, I think, the Senate.

That would not have been Jefferson, who was not a Christian.

Christ was preached from the same podium as Senators gave their speeches. Obviously, religious activities on government property was not what Jefferson and other founders thought was prohibited by the First Amendment.

See my paragraph above.

The Catholic Church teaches, and requires all Catholics to believe, that we are to inform the world, including the political world, with our faith and morals. That is the role of the Church Herself. Our faith not only belongs in the Public Square, but we have a duty to bring our faith to the Public Square.

And the First Amendment guarantees it.

On your own dime, however.

I think it's interesting that modern Catholics seem to have no clue whatsoever of the intense anti-Catholic bigotry that had been practiced by custom and law in the US until...the Civil Rights Act.

 

[mea kulpa]

The state should always be subordinate to the moral authority.

The supreme moral authority is God himself but on Earth Christ setup his church to be that moral authority (it has not done a good job of that since the mid 1900s ).

Any state that sets itself up as the sole moral authority on earth will usher in tyranny and absolute horror.

Just look at nazi germany the soviet union communist china and a whole multitude of nations who have commited mass genocide against their own people.

Then we look at the bloodshed of wars since the rejection of the catholic faith the two world wars vietnam iraq afganistan korea etc etc etc... all these things are because the nations have rejected the kingship of jesus christ and set themselves up as the moral authority.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Actually, it would. There is a difference between using government funds to support a particular religion--which is an "establishment" --and permitting persons of a religion to practice their religion while coincidentally being on government property.

No, it is not establishment. No state/national religion is established. The founders were concerned about establishing something like the Church of England. This definition of "establishment" is crystal clear from both the writings and the actions of the founders, that today would make the heads of the "separation of Church and State" folks explode. (see below for an example)

That would not have been Jefferson, who was not a Christian.

Sorry, dude, but it happened, but in the House, not the Senate as I reported earlier.

A quote from the Library of Congress:

The State Becomes the Church: Jefferson and Madison
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.

And from Wallbuilders site:

Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson's friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor.

MANASSEH CUTLER
U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that "He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall." 7 Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: "Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant." 8 She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: "The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary." 9 Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: "It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson's] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall." 10 Other diary entries confirm Jefferson's attendance in spite of bad weather. 11

In addition to Mary Bayard Smith and Congressman Manasseh Cutler, others kept diaries of the weekly Capitol church services "" including Congressman Abijah Bigelow and statesman John Quincy Adams. (Adams served in Washington first as a Senator, then a President, and then as a Representative; and his extensive diaries describe the numerous church services he attended at the Capitol across a span of decades.) Typical of Adams' diary entries while a U. S.

Senator under President Jefferson were these:

Attended public service at the Capitol where Mr. Rattoon, an Episcopalian clergyman from Baltimore, preached a sermon. 12

[R]eligious service is usually performed on Sundays at the Treasury office and at the Capitol. I went both forenoon and afternoon to the Treasury. 13

Jefferson was not the only President to attend church at the Capitol. His successor, James Madison, also attended church at the Capitol. 14 However, there was a difference in the way the two arrived for services. Observers noted that Jefferson arrived at church on horseback 15 (it was 1.6 miles from the White House to the Capitol). However, Madison arrived for church in a coach and four. In fact, British diplomat Augustus Foster, who attended services at the Capitol, gave an eloquent description of President Madison arriving at the Capitol for church in a carriage drawn by four white horses.

From Jefferson through Abraham Lincoln, many presidents attended church at the Capitol; and it was common practice for Members of Congress to attend those services. For example, in his diary entry of January 9, 1803, Congressman Cutler noted: "Attended in the morning at the Capitol. . . . Very full assembly. Many of the Members present." 16 The church was often full "so crowded, in fact, one attendee reported that since "the floor of the House offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker's chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in" was filled. 17 U. S. Representative John Quincy Adams (although noting that occasionally the "House was full, but not crowded" 18) also commented numerous times on the overly-crowded conditions at the Capitol church. In his diary entry for February 28, 1841, he noted: "I rode with my wife, Elizabeth C. Adams, and Mary, to the Capitol, where the Hall of the House of Representatives was so excessively crowded that it was with extreme difficulty that we were enabled to obtain seats." 19 Why did so many Members attend Divine service in the Hall of the House? Adams explained why he attended: "I consider it as one of my public duties- as a representative of the people- to give my attendance every Sunday morning when Divine service is performed in the Hall." 20

Interestingly, the Marine Band participated in the early Capitol church services. According to Margaret Bayard Smith, who regularly attended services at the Capitol, the band, clad in their scarlet uniforms, made a "dazzling appearance" as they played from the gallery, providing instrumental accompaniment for the singing. 21 The band, however, seemed too ostentatious for the services and "the attendance of the marine-band was soon discontinued." 22

From 1800 to 1801, the services were held in the north wing; from 1801 to 1804, they were held in the "oven" in the south wing, and then from 1804 to 1807, they were again held in the north wing. From 1807 to 1857, services were held in what is now Statuary Hall. By 1857 when the House moved into its new home in the extension, some 2,000 persons a week were attending services in the Hall of the House. 23 Significantly, even though the U. S. Congress began meeting in the extension on Wednesday, December 16, 1857, the first official use of the House Chamber had occurred three days earlier, when "on December 13, 1857, the Rev. Dr. George Cummins preached before a crowd of 2,000 worshipers in the first public use of the chamber. Soon thereafter, the committee recommended that the House convene in the new Hall on Wednesday, December 16, 1857." 24 However, regardless of the part of the building in which the church met, the rostrum of the Speaker of the House was used as the preacher's pulpit; and Congress purchased the hymnals used in the service.

The church services in the Hall of the House were interdenominational, overseen by the chaplains appointed by the House and Senate; sermons were preached by the chaplains on a rotating basis, or by visiting ministers approved by the Speaker of the House. As Margaret Bayard Smith, confirmed: "Not only the chaplains, but the most distinguished clergymen who visited the city, preached in the Capitol" 25 and "clergymen, who during the session of Congress visited the city, were invited by the chaplains to preach." 26

In addition to the non-denominational service held in the Hall of the House, several individual churches (such as Capitol Hill Presbyterian, the Unitarian Church of Washington, First Congregational Church, First Presbyterian Church, etc.) met in the Capitol each week for their own services; there could be up to four different church services at the Capitol each Sunday.

IN 1867, OVER 2,000 PER WEEK ATTENDED CHURCH SERVICES AT THE CAPITOL
The Library of Congress provides an account of one of those churches that met weekly at the Capitol: "Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 Chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime, the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services- ˜at the Hall of Representatives' where- ˜the audience is the largest in town. . . . nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath' for services, making the congregation in the House the ˜largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States.' The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868." 27

OLD SUPREME COURT CHAMBER
With so many services occurring, the Hall of the House was not the only location in the Capitol where church services were conducted. John Quincy Adams, in his February 2, 1806, diary entry, describes an overflow service held in the Supreme Court Chamber, 28 and Congressman Manasseh Cutler describes a similar service in 1804. 29 (At that time, the Supreme Court Chamber was located on the first floor of the Capitol.) Services were also held in the Senate Chamber as well as on the first floor of the south wing.

Footnotes:
[5] Bishop Claggett's (Episcopal Bishop of Maryland) letter of February 18, 1801, reveals that, as vice- President, Jefferson went to church services in the House. Available in the Maryland Diocesan Archives.

[6] William Parker Cutler and Julia Perkins Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence of Rev. Manasseh Cutler (Cincinnati: Colin Robert Clarke & Co., 1888), Vol. II, p. 66, letter to Joseph Torrey, January 4, 1802. Cutler meant that Jefferson attended church on January 3, 1802, for the first time as President. Bishop Claggett's letter of February 18, 1801, already revealed that as Vice-President, Jefferson went to church services in the House.

[7] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 12, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 113).

[8] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.

[9] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 13.

[10] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, in a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803; see also his entry of December 26, 1802 (Vol. II, p. 114).

[11] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 114, December 26, 1802.

[12] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 268, October 30, 1803.

[13] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. I, p. 265, October 23, 1803.

[14] Abijah Bigelow to Hannah Bigleow, December 28, 1812. "Letters of Abijah Bigleow, Member of Congress, to his Wife," Proceedings, 1810-1815, American Antiquarian Society (1930), p. 168.

[15] See, for example, Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 119, from a letter to Dr. Joseph Torrey on January 3, 1803.

[16] Cutler and Cutler, Life, Journal, and Correspondence, Vol. II, p. 116, January 9, 1803.

[17] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.

[18] See, for example, John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. VII, pp. 437-438, February 17, 1828; Vol. XI, pp. 160-161, May 22, 1842; and others.

[19] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. X, p. 434, February 28, 1841.

[20] John Quincy Adams, Memoirs, Vol. XI, p. 169, June 5, 1842.

[21] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.

[22] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 16.

[23] James Hutson (Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress), Religion and the Founding of the American Republic(Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1998), p. 91.

[24] William C. Allen (Architectural Historian of the Capitol), A History of the United States Capitol, A Chronicle of Design, Construction, and Politics (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 271.

[25] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 14.

[26] Smith, The First Forty Years, p. 15.

[27] Fundraising brochure, Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress; available at Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.

[28] Hutson, Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, p. 90.

[29] From the Library of Congress, at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html.

 

[Rhamiel]

So if government property is used for Christmas displays during Christmas season, then it must be open for other religious displays on their holidays.

why?
even from just a secular perspective, this does not make sense
if you have 75% of a community with a single faith lets say Christian, and then you have 2% of the community who is a different faith, lets say Jewish, it does not make sense to pretend that both are equal in regards to how public space should be allotted

and then there are religions that are just Troll Religions, pastafarianism and LaVey style Satanism that just exist to mock real religions

even if I was an atheist, it would be silly to treat all religions like they were equal

Roger Williams, in "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience," marches through history to show that abolition of the Establishment Clause will definitely have that result, each and every time. We see it now in Islamic societies

well Islam is horrible, so we can expect to see bad results in general

 

[RDKirk]

Well, I won't continue the debate in this particular forum area.