Separation Of Church And State?

[TheKeyboardist]

What are Christians to believe concerning this topic? I feel somewhat that you should be allowed to pray if you want to but you should not be forced to.

What are some arguments against separation?

Its a topic thats been coming up in comversations lately and some answers would be greatly appreciated.

 

[puregrl]

You are allowed to pray whenever and wherever you want. It is your right. Seperation of church and state just ensures that the two wont me mixed on issues. But i don't think we should take God out of anything we do.

 

[Blades]

The Church will become the State eventualy..... but not just yet.

Note the 4 Beasts in Daniel..... what are they? not States..... they are the 4 Great Religions of the World.

Hinduism Islam Buddist.... and the 4th that tramples all over the other 3 is Christendom, the Wild Beast of revelations.

The time of the False phropet and demanding of worship is some time off as yet.

Grace and Peace to you always

 

[Macca]

What are Christians to believe concerning this topic? I feel somewhat that you should be allowed to pray if you want to but you should not be forced to.

What are some arguments against separation?

Its a topic thats been coming up in comversations lately and some answers would be greatly appreciated.

Although I am not an expert on your constitution, I believe that if you check the amendments to it you will discover that there was no intention to separate Church and state.

 

[BigNorsk]

Confusing the two kingdoms always leads to problems. The usual result is a dead church.

Marv

 

[kamikat]

Although I am not an expert on your constitution, I believe that if you check the amendments to it you will discover that there was no intention to separate Church and state.

This is correct. The actual intention was to prevent State-sponsored religion. This just means that the US Govt can't suddenly announce that it is now a Christian nation and all citizens have to join a Christian church in order to maintain their citizenship. The modern "separation of Church and State" movement actually began in the 19th cent by Protestants. During a wave of Catholic immigration to the US, many Protestant groups were concerned that the Vatican would take control of the Us Govt and forcibly convert the Protestants to Catholicism.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0212/reviews/smith.html

kamikat

 

[Blades]

Seperation of Church and State is one would presume the act of enlightened free thinking men....

Yet in the end does not all honor for the clay go to the potter , from the same lump he can choose to make one vessel for honor and one for dishonor..... most of us are lucky to see 75 years of age before we return to dust and ashes.

How quickly the World we live in can change.....since when has the alledged free will of man ever moved Gods will away from Plan A (and he is still on plan A by the way)

Our God is incredible.... what Ironies prevail in his plan for men, one classic example is the Gospel of Grace to the Gentiles, from the foremost of all sinners. (Saul of Tarsus)

Yet more Irony is yet to come it would seem in the nature of the fourth Beast in Daniel..... for how else will the false phropet lead so many into captivity so easily... when that time that is due, comes.

Grace and Peace to you always

 

[Oblio]

Byzantium will rise again

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Theses days it's probably more fruitful to speak of the relationship between church and culture.

About this many godly men and women have been of mixed opinions.

But wrt church and state, well, it's a good idea if it means that the state will not seek to rule in the church and the church will not seek to rule in the state.

But again, a question prompts itself: what are we meaning when we talk about "church" in this context? The institutional public face of the Body of Christ? Or do we also mean any group of committed believers gathered and united in any particular endeavor?

For example, the pro-life movement seeks to influence the state. It seeks to rule the state on a particular issue, does it have the right to do this? If so, why? And is this an example of church-state mingling?

Not to derail...someone can start another thread if the OP author thinks it necessary.

(Hint as to my position: look at my political symbol)

 

[Wisdom's Child]

Theses days it's probably more fruitful to speak of the relationship between church and culture.

About this many godly men and women have been of mixed opinions.

But wrt church and state, well, it's a good idea if it means that the state will not seek to rule in the church and the church will not seek to rule in the state.

But again, a question prompts itself: what are we meaning when we talk about "church" in this context? The institutional public face of the Body of Christ? Or do we also mean any group of committed believers gathered and united in any particular endeavor?

For example, the pro-life movement seeks to influence the state. It seeks to rule the state on a particular issue, does it have the right to do this? If so, why? And is this an example of church-state mingling?

Not to derail...someone can start another thread if the OP author thinks it necessary.

(Hint as to my position: look at my political symbol)

Good question, but at the same time, In the United States we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The "Church" proper is the ecclesia, the assembly of believers.
Is it right to separate your religious beliefs from your political beliefs? Does that not make you double minded? And if you sencerely believe in your religious faith would you have to abstain from voting as a result of this separation clause? After all, by proxy your vote is how we "impose our will" on issues of State.

(like your political symbol)

 

[QuantaCura]

All states should be ruled in a Christian manner

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Some Comments....


1. The two are bound to get in each other's way. While they have different focuses, they both include morality (laws are just codes of morality, nearly all legislation is an application of values).


2. Over the years, both have learned to abuse the other. The church usually ends up with the short end.


3. "Freedom of religion" is easy to say, not always easy to impliment. It's the whole issue of "your freedom stops when it impacts me." It's important to work out these issues (an on-going process). Religion is often the most important, intimate, central issue in the lives of citizens - and that needs to be respected, both for the individual and for society, neither infringing on the "rights" of the other. Respect. Easier in theory than in fact.


MY $0.01...


Keep the faith! Share the love!

 

[JulySheMustFly]

Good question, but at the same time, In the United States we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The "Church" proper is the ecclesia, the assembly of believers.
Is it right to separate your religious beliefs from your political beliefs? Does that not make you double minded? And if you sencerely believe in your religious faith would you have to abstain from voting as a result of this separation clause? After all, by proxy your vote is how we "impose our will" on issues of State.

(like your political symbol)

If your political stance is not supported by your belief system then you are double minded, yes. But if they are aligned then you are of one mind following what you believe. Your faith should not keep you from voting because although laws are guided by someone's belief of right and wrong none of them are forcing a person to directly believe in any specific god. Religion sets your standards for life but is not forced upon someone unless you are telling them to believe in whatever your god is.

 

[Harlan Norris]

What are Christians to believe concerning this topic? I feel somewhat that you should be allowed to pray if you want to but you should not be forced to.

What are some arguments against separation?

Its a topic thats been coming up in comversations lately and some answers would be greatly appreciated.

The mingling of church and state is the mingling of politics and Christianity,here in the USA.Well, there's little doubt in my mind that politics are evil.Lies slander extortion,all are part of the elective process.I have never seen a politician that was steadfastly honest.Frankly the longer they are in office the worse it get's.So, with this in mind,I think it's safe to say that politics are an evil tree,figuratively speaking.An evil tree cannot bear good fruit.Christianity mixed with politics is in my humble opinion,fruitless.

 

[kamikat]

The "Church" proper is the ecclesia, the assembly of believers.
Is it right to separate your religious beliefs from your political beliefs? Does that not make you double minded?

As a voter, no, you shouldn't separate your religious beliefs from your political beliefs. However, I do think a politician should. A politician should be representing the people who voted for him, even if they differ from him on certain religious issues. If that candidate's views differ from the people who might be electing him, he does have a responsibility to let the voters know. For example, if a pro-life candidate is running in a pro-choice district, he should let the voters know that he's pro-life. If they still vote him into office, but then write and call him about pro-choice issues, he is obligated to follow what his voters ask him to do.

kamikat

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Good question, but at the same time, In the United States we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The "Church" proper is the ecclesia, the assembly of believers.
Is it right to separate your religious beliefs from your political beliefs? Does that not make you double minded? And if you sencerely believe in your religious faith would you have to abstain from voting as a result of this separation clause? After all, by proxy your vote is how we "impose our will" on issues of State.

(like your political symbol)

Good stuff!

(But I'd expect nothing less from a fellow Libbitroovian)

You're absolutely right. In a democratic republic believers should vote according to their consciences and for Christians this would mean a conscience informed by the Word of God.

Unfortunately, on the issue of abortion, we've never been given the opportunity.

But still, a duly constituted authority has made abortion on demand the law of the land.

According to some polls, a majority of Americans are in favor of, at least limited access to abortion...so, right wrong or indifferent, if it is true that the majority are in favor of it all Christians who oppose it can do is bring arguments to bear and hope and pray to change hearts and minds.

On the other hand, Libertarians for Life take the position that, it being a seminal libertarian principle that rights begin and end where those of others begin and end, the right to life guaranteed under the constitution is, ultimately, inviolable.

So, a constitutional argument against abortion on demand can be constructed without any reference to Christian morality...

I am very sorry to make this about abortion. I realize that the OP wasn't about that and I can certainly understand if no one wants to catch the hot potato, but abortion happens to be, I think, the most important moral issue of our day.

So to return to your point, yes, people informed with a set of specifically Christian values should vote according to their conscience, as should Hindus and Humanists according to the values they are informed by.

I wonder though about efforts on the part of Christian groups to impose a political solution to a moral problem on the rest of the body politic.

I guess I am saying there are right ways and wrong ways to do things.

I don't have any answers, I'm just thinking this stuff through.

And for the guy who said all states should rule according to Christian principles, well, in principle I agree, but this assumes that states can be Christian...

I don't happen to agree with that at all.

 

[Wisdom's Child]

Good stuff!

(But I'd expect nothing less from a fellow Libbitroovian)
<snip>
You're absolutely right. In a democratic republic believers should vote according to their consciences and for Christians this would mean a conscience informed by the Word of God.
<snip>
I am very sorry to make this about abortion. I realize that the OP wasn't about that and I can certainly understand if no one wants to catch the hot potato, but abortion happens to be, I think, the most important moral issue of our day.
<snip>

From my vantagepoint it makes for a great example regardless.
The last time we had to deal with a moral issue of this magnitude was in the 1830's and 1840's over the Slavery Issue. It is my hope that we can come to some equitable resolution before as history shows we must enevitably go down the path of civil war once more. Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Many back then in the south before the war were betting that Christian men would not purposefully shed blood for the life and liberty of what they considered to be "sub-human". Today the moral liberals are making that very same bet.

According to a number of statistical websites, the population of the United States is between 75% and 78% Christian by Census Poll.
That would make a clear majority, almost a 2/3rds majority if they would only stand their ground on these morality issues. But clearly there are many who profess openly, but in secret ballot deny their moral faith and abandon their moral obligations in favor of tolerance.
No I'm not saying we should create a religious state, but I do favor a moral and just state which champions the cause of Life, Libery, and the Persuit of Happiness.

 

[the1888message]

The Church will become the State eventualy..... but not just yet.

Note the 4 Beasts in Daniel..... what are they? not States..... they are the 4 Great Religions of the World.

Hinduism Islam Buddist.... and the 4th that tramples all over the other 3 is Christendom, the Wild Beast of revelations.

The time of the False phropet and demanding of worship is some time off as yet.

Grace and Peace to you always

If the 4 beast of Daniel are 4 grerat religions then why does an Angel give Daniel the interrputation that it is 4 Great nations and He even names a couple of them?

Peace and Grace

 

[the1888message]

All states should be ruled in a Christian manner

There are many different understandings of the Christain faith, which one would rule, or how would we determine what set of rules to apply?

 

[Blades]

If the 4 beast of Daniel are 4 grerat religions then why does an Angel give Daniel the interrputation that it is 4 Great nations and He even names a couple of them?

Peace and Grace

By all means please expand on this.....