Separation Of Church And State?

[Harlan Norris]

Wow amazing,and frankly more than a little omenous.All these Christians saying yes to Church and state.I knew it was comming.I didn't think it would come so quickly.The govt. that comes out of this will resemble facist Germany and the Spanish inquisition rolled into one.If anything in this country can cause civil war,it's a theocracy.Well, I hope I'm among the first to go into the gulag.Get it over with quickly.

 

[MidnightCandel777]

Ok, people, look at it this way. This policy was designed by our Founding Fathers. Where they came from, both the church and the state was ruled by the King, making for corruption on both ends. To end this corruption, the founding fathers separated the two. But new lawmakers have twisted this idea into a weapon, saying that religon and government should not be mixed.

The Senate holds a prayer before every session. Seeking the wisdom of God in politics is a good idea, but the lawmakers and people in general need to understand what was meant when the founding fathers seperated church and state.

 

[nephilimiyr]

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.

It's not written in the US Bill of Rights so why even consider it?

Here is what is written: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Do you see "seperation of church and state" written in that sentence? I see were congress can't make any LAWS, pro or con, reguarding a religion or a church. There's nothing in that sentence that suggests that a religion must be seperated from any government affairs or organizations. It does say that the US government must not prohibit the religious practises.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Ok, people, look at it this way. This policy was designed by our Founding Fathers. Where they came from, both the church and the state was ruled by the King, making for corruption on both ends. To end this corruption, the founding fathers separated the two. But new lawmakers have twisted this idea into a weapon, saying that religon and government should not be mixed.

That's not right. What was written in the Bill of Rights says nothing about a seperation of church and state. What was written says that government can't interfere

 

[Tonks]

That's not right. What was written in the Bill of Rights says nothing about a seperation of church and state. What was written says that government can't interfere

While perhaps correct, this is a pretty hollow argument. As such, things are what they are today and the original intent on this issue has long since been forgotten.

 

[Tonks]

double.

 

[nephilimiyr]

While perhaps correct, this is a pretty hollow argument. As such, things are what they are today and the original intent on this issue has long since been forgotten.

It's more than clear that the founding fathers did not mean total seperation of church and state. Their only clear message in the Bill of Rights was that government could not interfere. Of course we have now the understanding that we can't let religious groups or organizations do whatever they please. They still have to abide by the laws that everyone else is required to abide by. However that does not mean that a religious organization must stay seperated from any government affairs or organizations.

The US government can't allow a religious organization to commit murder because exercising their religious beliefs requires human sacrifice but the government has no right to order a US Judge to take out a plaque of the 10 commandments in his courtroom and use the 1st amendment as it's reason for doing so. That in fact is a violation of free speach which is also in the 1st amendment.

 

[Tonks]

The US government can't allow a religious organization to commit murder because exercising their religious beliefs requires human sacrifice but the government has no right to order a US Judge to take out a plaque of the 10 commandments in his courtroom and use the 1st amendment as it's reason for doing so. That in fact is a violation of free speach which is also in the 1st amendment.

There is a huge difference here. Murder is illegal - whether it is religiously motivated or not. Plus, while the judge may sit in the courtroom it is not "his" courtroom. It belongs to the state and / or federal government, depending on the venue. Frankly, freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. As a Catholic I'm thankful for the protections as much of the Christianity practiced in this country is not something I agree with.

 

[nephilimiyr]

There is a huge difference here. Murder is illegal - whether it is religiously motivated or not. Plus, while the judge may sit in the courtroom it is not "his" courtroom. It belongs to the state and / or federal government, depending on the venue. Frankly, freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. As a Catholic I'm thankful for the protections as much of the Christianity practiced in this country is not something I agree with.

Whatever difference you find it makes no difference to me, you're just looking for something silly to argue and to then win that arguement. The fact is, the 1st amendment says nothing about seperation of church and state. Sorry, it just doesn't. Reguardless of all the things you are thankful for, the 1st amendment still doesn't say or mean seperation of church and state.

 

[Tonks]

Whatever difference you find it makes no difference to me, you're just looking for something silly to argue and to then win that arguement. The fact is, the 1st amendment says nothing about seperation of church and state. Sorry, it just doesn't. Reguardless of all the things you are thankful for, the 1st amendment still doesn't say or mean seperation of church and state.

I was merely explaining my reasoning - not attempting to win any sort of argument.

The courts disagree with you. You can howl and bang pots and pans together until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the manner in which the judicial and legislative intent of that section of the First Amendment has developed over course of last couple of hundred years.

 

[KEPLER]

That's not right. What was written in the Bill of Rights says nothing about a seperation of church and state. What was written says that government can't interfere

Ummm. the Bill of Rights ought not be separated form its historical context. It's hardly an abstract document. It was written as a safeguard against REAL abuses that had happened in the preceding generations and in the Founding Fathers' own experience.

To "get it", you need to be at least basically familair with Hobbes' Leviathan, Locke's Two Treatises Concerning Government and An Essay on Human Understanding, Rousseau's Social Contract, and the events leading up the Glorious Revolution of 1689. These are the things that were in the back of the minds of Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Payne.

The concept of the separation of Church and State actually goes back (at least) as far as the 13th and 14th centuries and the writings of Dante (De monarchia) and Marsilius of Padua (Defensor pacis). In his work, Marsilius argued against the Church's interference in the Kingdom of France, and ultimately argued for a complete separation of Civil and Church authority.

Kepler

 

[KEPLER]

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.

Back to the OP...it might be good, rather than limiting the discussion of "church and state" to look at the more over-arching categories of "Christ and Culture"... I would suggest a book by that title by Rheinhold Niebuhr. It's a classic and very easy to read.

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[nephilimiyr]

Ummm. the Bill of Rights ought not be separated form its historical context. It's hardly an abstract document. It was written as a safeguard against REAL abuses that had happened in the preceding generations and in the Founding Fathers' own experience.

Thus the reason for the founding fathers not wanting a government dictating what a church should and should not do. No arguement here, this is what I have said the 1st amendemnt is stateing. What you just wrote does not address sepration of church and state, it adresses the non-involvment of the government in the affairs of a religion or church. And yes, Tonks can still be thankful for the 1st amendment under just this meaning of it.

To "get it", you need to be at least basically familair with Hobbes' Leviathan, Locke's Two Treatises Concerning Government and An Essay on Human Understanding, Rousseau's Social Contract, and the events leading up the Glorious Revolution of 1689. These are the things that were in the back of the minds of Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Payne.

There's a big difference between what is in the backs of peoples minds and knowing exactly what they meant when they wrote a document. Reading books or learning history on a certain subject and then say you know what was in the backs of the people's minds maybe alright but you still need evidence to show that these men subscribed to the same philosophy that those books speak about and to what extent did they subscribe to it.

Just by saying that there was this philosophy out there and we know these men read the books in no way shows all of the extend in how these men viewed this new philosophy. Not entirerly, because we do know they didn't want the government being involved with church policy, but to what extent did they view the rules and responsibilities of the church concerning the government and it's institutions? Do you know this? I don't think you can find that answer in any of the books you listed.

In the same way, because I read the Bible, are then going to feel free, without fear of contradiction, to tell people what I believe? Just by the virtue of knowing that I have read the Bible? Come on now...

The concept of the separation of Church and State actually goes back (at least) as far as the 13th and 14th centuries and the writings of Dante (De monarchia) and Marsilius of Padua (Defensor pacis).

I'll take your word for it that you know what you're talking about but did you also know that, from what I understand, the Soviet Union had the exact words, "sepreration of church and state" written into it's constitution? Of course if that's true they sure didn't mean it nor inforced it because their government did almost everything to suppress and persecute religious beliefs and practises.

Marsilius argued against the Church's interference in the Kingdom of France, and ultimately argued for a complete separation of Civil and Church authority.

Kepler

OK, that's nice, now tell me what the founding fathers said, not what Marsilius said.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I was merely explaining my reasoning - not attempting to win any sort of argument.

The courts disagree with you. You can howl and bang pots and pans together until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the manner in which the judicial and legislative intent of that section of the First Amendment has developed over course of last couple of hundred years.

Word...

I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.

 

[KEPLER]

Thus the reason for the founding fathers not wanting a government dictating what a church should and should not do. No arguement here, this is what I have said the 1st amendemnt is stateing. What you just wrote does not address sepration of church and state, it adresses the non-involvment of the government in the affairs of a religion or church. And yes, Tonks can still be thankful for the 1st amendment under just this meaning of it.

They also didn't want a Church dictating what the Government could do: that was the REASON for the GLorious Revolution. There was a Roman Catholic King on the English Throne, and the British feared that James' allegiance to his Church would overrule the national interests of the Kingdom. So they got rid of him, and put on the English Throne the Dutch King, who pretty much could care less about Church matters. Sure he was a protestant, but there were no Dutch theologians telling him how to run the country (not for lack of trying; William just didn't listen).

The Founding Fathers FEARED the tyrrany of either Canterbury or Rome or the Presbyterian Taliban up in Edinburgh.

There's a big difference between what is in the backs of peoples minds and knowing exactly what they meant when they wrote a document. Reading books or learning history on a certain subject and then say you know what was in the backs of the people's minds maybe alright but you still need evidence to show that these men subscribed to the same philosophy that those books speak about and to what extent did they subscribe to it.

Just by saying that there was this philosophy out there and we know these men read the books in no way shows any evidence in how these founding fathers viewed it and to what exent they did if they did.

Hmmm, the fact that some portions of the Declartion of Independence are practically plagiarized from Locke is pretty convincing evidence to me. "Life, Liberty and Estate" in Locke became "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" in the DoI. The "pursuit of happiness" was defined as being able to own proprty without regard to social stauts, class, etc, or exorbinant taxation.

In the same way, because I read the Bible you are then going to feel free, without fear of contradiction, to tell people what I believe? Just by virtue that I have read the Bible? Come on now...

If you start quoting the important parts and building a country on it, then yes, it's safe bet.

I'll take your word for it that you know what you're talking about but did you also know that, from what I understand, the Soviet Union had the exact words, "sepreration of church and state" written into it's constitution? Of course if that's true they sure didn't mean it nor inforced it because their government did almost everything to suppress and persecute religious beliefs and practises.

That's the fallacy of anachronism (and also a red herring) but yes I did know that.

OK, that's nice, now tell me what the founding fathers said, not what Marsilius said.

The point is that the concept of shielding government from the influence of the Church is not a recent development thrown upon us by 20th century liberalism. Far from it! It has a looooooong history.

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[Diane_Windsor]

What are Christians to believe concerning this topic?

Render unto Caesar . . .

Jesus strongly supported the Separation of Church and State by word and by example. Jesus never demanded an audience with the Emperor to get Roman secular laws to be based on His morals.

And if Jesus can't convince you then go back into history and see how corrupt the Church was in the Middle Ages as a result of the intwining of Church and State . . .

diane

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Render unto Caesar . . .

Jesus strongly supported the Separation of Church and State by word and by example. Jesus never demanded an audience with the Emperor to get Roman secular laws to be based on His morals.

And if Jesus can't convince you then go back into history and see how corrupt the Church was in the Middle Ages as a result of the intwining of Church and State . . .

diane

And then there's the fact that He was killed under the aegis of the State.

I don't know how much more "separate" you can get.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Back to the OP...it might be good, rather than limiting the discussion of "church and state" to look at the more over-arching categories of "Christ and Culture"... I would suggest a book by that title by Rheinhold Niebuhr. It's a classic and very easy to read.

Cheers,

Kepler

Yes, that's a great book and I second your recommendation.

I also recommend the books of Gene Edward Veith on the subject.

 

[Aras]

Forgive me for jumping into this discussion four pages in. My personal belief is separation of Church and State is not only good but necessary. And while I have no issue with publicly praying be it to God, Allah, or to the Fonz for that matter as long as it is not to a point of disturbing the piece. (i.e. praying at the top of your lungs in a shopping mall).

But I do think that government institutes such as the public school system have no right to have required prayer etc. and I would find grave offense if I found out a public school near me had a class prayer before even just first period, even if that prayer was to our God. Because it is very unlikely that every student at that school is Christian, and if even a minority has been forced to participate in a prayer to what they view as a false god it is unacceptable to me, it would be akin to the outrage some of you would find at a public school leading prayer to Allah. I think that people thinking our religion or any other have some sort of superiority over others because we are the "right ones" is arrogant.

Well, that is my two cents.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Render unto Caesar . . .

Jesus strongly supported the Separation of Church and State by word and by example. Jesus never demanded an audience with the Emperor to get Roman secular laws to be based on His morals.

And if Jesus can't convince you then go back into history and see how corrupt the Church was in the Middle Ages as a result of the intwining of Church and State . . .

diane

True.

Implicit in the 10 commandments is the separation as well. Jesus divided them into two parts: love for God, and love for neighbor. The last five were the criminal code and were separated from the first five with the destruction of the temple, being given over to civil authorities. The church retained responsibility for the first five, as a spiritual matter. It is so today, with the state administering the civil code contained in the last five; and the church responsible for the first five. Thus the separation of church and state demonstrated in the very commandments of God, as well as in the history of the early church after the demise of the Levitical priesthood, which had 'administered' all ten of the commandments.