How Should We Separate Church and State

[mkgal1]

It seems as times goes on.....attitudes and biases are becoming more clearly expressed and defined....so this issue isn't as complex as it was when things were beneath the surface. I just came across this article and thought it gave a lot of insight:

Perhaps one of the most discussed stories of the current news cycle is the controversy surrounding San Francisco 49ers quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, and his refusal to stand during the National Anthem. I’m certainly not surprised at the outrage across the internet– in fact, if it were legal to fire him, strip his citizenship, and deport him from the country, I’m sure that would have already happened.

There are multiple angles of this story that concern me, but none concern me as much as watching so many self-professed Christians condemning his choice of sitting during the anthem. I’ve seen all the typical condemnations– from accusations of being disrespectful, to demanding that he leave the country if he’s not willing to stand. It should certainly be clear to us that refusing to pay homage to the flag, or the nation, is socially unacceptable and comes with a high cost.

There’s actually a story like this in the Bible. In Daniel 3 we find King Nebuchadnezzar making a statue of gold and commanding everyone pay homage to it when they hear the music start playing– not unlike what we do with our flag and anthem. As most of us will recall, there were three folks who refused to participate in this: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

I’m sure they faced a lot of peer pressure. I’m betting people told them, “Stop being so ungrateful, we live in a great place” and “Don’t be so disrespectful, don’t you know what the king has done for you?”

Yet, they did not cave to the pressure. When the music began to play, they refused to bow like everyone else did– even though the penalty was death.

Those of us who grow up in Christian circles are taught this story– and we’re taught to have the courage of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.


Read more at Why Christian Parents Should Celebrate The Biblical Example of Colin Kaepernick

 

[Ringo84]

As much as possible. It's not the church's job to wade into politics, and it's not the state's job to involve itself in religious affairs.

Religion that is required by the state is not faith; it's coercion. Individuals should be free to worship - or not worship - however they see fit. Keep the government out of religious affairs.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Christianity should infuse everything we do and say. Our work, our private life, our public life. Being a Christian is not something that just happens on Sunday. Living for Christ is a daily experience. We should have no separation of church and state the way it is used today. Separation of church and state is a must where it comes to religious requirements and religious laws. We should not have a state or state sponsered religion.

But the people in our government should be free to speak of and practice their religion openly. Governments should be free to express religious sentiment whenever they want to. Ten commandments should be allowed on courtroom walls as an expression of religious understanding. Crosses should be allowed in the classroom and on public lands should those in government deem it appropriate. Why? Because they are elected officials. If you don't like it then vote them out and put in people who don't want that. This goes for any religious thing. Should a school teacher be a Muslim and want to decorate her classroom with Muslim stuff, then so be it. As long as she does not proselytize or demand the students be Muslim and participate in Muslim practices who cares? Same goes for the Christians. They should be allowed to put up nativity scenes in their classroom if they want to. We need to STOP BEING OFFENDED every time we turn around. This country has turned into a bunch of whiny namby pambies who can't handle the fact that other people believe and think differently. As long as no laws are passed demanding people believe or worship a certain way or go to a certain church to receive benefits or whatever then we need to get a grip and allow people to live their lives in public service as well as private.

You can't protect everyone's religious beliefs if you allow the government to take sides in religious affairs by erecting Ten Commandments monuments on federal property or actions like that.

If we want to maintain our freedom of religion, we need to keep the government out of religious affairs altogether. The government is not a person. It can't be "saved" from hell. Religion concerns the individual conscience, and that conscience should be free to choose its own path without government interference - whether that means belief in God, belief in Allah, or belief in Wendy's Frosties.

The government should stay out of religious affairs altogether.
Ringo

 

[mkgal1]

Individuals should be free to worship - or not worship - however they see fit.

.....even if it includes carrying tiki torches and chanting, "blood and soil" and "the Jews will not replace us" while encircling churches filled with people?

What about cults that prey on vulnerable people (that are more like con schemes....some taking money AND a person's spirit)? Should they have the shelter of a tax-exempt status? Should they even be allowed to operate--especially as a "religion"? In several countries there are bans that protect people from this. Isn't that how it *should* be? Even Russia has banned the "church" of Scientology stating that it doesn't meet their requirement of "religion". According to Time Magazine ( Time magazine 9 November 2009 p. 10 ) Scientology was convicted of fraud and fined the equivalent of almost a million US dollars. Isn't "politics" about a general agreement of how a society of people ought to operate (general rules)?

If we want to maintain our freedom of religion, we need to keep the government out of religious affairs altogether.

Not completely (what I wrote above is one example).....another is that marriages performed by churches need to be recognized by the government as well.

Religion concerns the individual conscience, and that conscience should be free to choose its own path without government interference - whether that means belief in God, belief in Allah, or belief in Wendy's Frosties.

To a point (I agree).....but when a person's expression collides with (and brings harm to) other people.....then we're talking about "societal" policy (which is what my understanding of "politics" is).

If I believe it's wrong for people to consume Wendy's Frosties...and I (and others that believe the same) begin blocking the doorways of Wendy's....and swatting Frosties out of the hands of those eating them (yelling some statement about why they ought not eat Frosties).....I've stolen away their freedom.

 

[Ringo84]

.....even if it includes carrying tiki torches and chanting, "blood and soil" and "the Jews will not replace us" while encircling churches filled with people?

What about cults that prey on vulnerable people (that are more like con schemes....some taking money AND a person's spirit)? Should they have the shelter of a tax-exempt status? Should they even be allowed to operate--especially as a "religion"? In several countries there are bans that protect people from this. Isn't that how it *should* be? Even Russia has banned the "church" of Scientology stating that it doesn't meet their requirement of "religion". According to Time Magazine ( Time magazine 9 November 2009 p. 10 ) Scientology was convicted of fraud and fined the equivalent of almost a million US dollars. Isn't "politics" about a general agreement of how a society of people ought to operate (general rules)?


Not completely (what I wrote above is one example).....another is that marriages performed by churches need to be recognized by the government as well.


To a point (I agree).....but when a person's expression collides with (and brings harm to) other people.....then we're talking about "societal" policy (which is what my understanding of "politics" is).

If I believe it's wrong for people to consume Wendy's Frosties...and I (and others that believe the same) begin blocking the doorways of Wendy's....and swatting Frosties out of the hands of those eating them (yelling some statement about why they ought not eat Frosties).....I've stolen away their freedom.

I agree. When I say 'get the government out of religious affairs', I'm mostly talking about the government showing preference to Protestant Christianity. No right is absolute, and I think that part of protecting our guarantee of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" includes government protection from religious malfeasance.
Ringo

 

[Paidiske]

Not completely (what I wrote above is one example).....another is that marriages performed by churches need to be recognized by the government as well.

I disagree, actually. I would like to see it go the other way; where the only legal marriage is civil marriage, and then you can choose to have or not have a religious ceremony afterwards, but that religious ceremony has no legal standing.

The French do it that way, and it solves a lot of headaches.

 

[mkgal1]

I disagree, actually. I would like to see it go the other way; where the only legal marriage is civil marriage, and then you can choose to have or not have a religious ceremony afterwards, but that religious ceremony has no legal standing.

The French do it that way, and it solves a lot of headaches.

Hmmm.....that does sound like a good solution to that problem. Here....no matter where a couple gets married (or who officiates)....they still need a marriage license from our respective cities....so why not just keep all the legality issues with the civil government? That makes sense to me.