Separation of Church and state

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

　
Any thoughts?

the Truth is The True Church of God/Jesus Body is not registered here on Earth but in Heaven!!! Indeed the True Church is separate from the State/Government!!!

Some people want to remove the "In God We Trust" from the dollar bill and government buildings.

BOOK OF ISaiah 8:1 ¶ And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.

1Sa 8:2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: [they were] judges in Beersheba.
1Sa 8:3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
1Sa 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
1Sa 8:6 ¶ But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
1Sa 8:8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
1Sa 8:9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
1Sa 8:10 ¶ And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
1Sa 8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint [them] for himself, for his chariots, and [to be] his horsemen; and [some] shall run before his chariots.
1Sa 8:12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and [will set them] to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
1Sa 8:13 And he will take your daughters [to be] confectionaries, and [to be] cooks, and [to be] bakers.
1Sa 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, [even] the best [of them], and give [them] to his servants.
1Sa 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
1Sa 8:16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put [them] to his work.
1Sa 8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
1Sa 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
1Sa 8:19 ¶ Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
1Sa 8:20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
1Sa 8:21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.
1Sa 8:22 And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
______________________________ ______________________________ _______
*There is a great lesson to be learned from the story posted above, the story in a nut shell is how Israel started out as a Monarchy. Originally God was there King, but because of the "wanting to be like the Jones syndrome''; Israel thought that the grass was greener on the other side of the fence and so they ask to be like the other nations that they were called to be a light and a beacon for, so they desired a king.
With this decision Samuel expresses the sentiment that God felt even before they made the decision and God told Samuel to hearken unto the voice of the people because they will suffer for the Choice that they made in rejecting God.
I want to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with being in subjection to higher authority, because God does believe in order and discipline, but when one begin to trust in the arm of flesh rather than the unchanging hands of God, then that is where the downward spiral begins for any one man or nation, as we can see from the life of Israel's first King, he committed suicide in the end.
______________________________ ______________________________
Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Mar 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.
Luk 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
______________________________ ______________________________ ____
*If we will only learn to render to GOD, the glory and honor due his Holy name, and realize that the affairs of men are secondary to GOD's. Then will this nation be a nation of kings and priest unto God.
Look at the Ten Commandment and one will get the clue as to who is most important in so far as principles and ethics are concerned.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Freedom of religion can only be genuine if it extends to all religions, not just the one the majority happens to hold. With that in mind, it should be perfectly clear that a separation of church and state is essential to a society built upon the value of liberty.

"In God we trust" was a rather ham-fisted attempt at spotting communist infiltrators during the Red Scare-era of American history, just like adding "one nation under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.
The paranoia of the McCarthy-years has long since worn off, the Cold War is over, and it's time to go back to the roots and core-values that made the USA an exceptional nation to begin with.

 

[citizenthom]

Israel had a true theocracy, created by God and fully subject to God's law. Israel's problem was that its leader did not follow that law; in modern parlance we'd say they ignored their Constitution wantonly.

Modern governments are not theocratic. Jesus recognized this when He told us to "give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's." Christianity is about a personal relationship to God through Christ, not a group relationship like the Old Covenant; and that relationship cannot be effectuated through the government.

 

[d'Albert]

Here's what the Constitution says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Two things congress may not do:

1) Pass legislation that establishes (creates, builds, sanctions...) a religion
2) Pass legislation prohibiting anyone from freely exercising their religion

That is what "separation of church and state" means Constitutionally. Nothing more.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

...........it's time to go back to the roots and core-values that made the USA an exceptional nation to begin with.

Those values come from a strong Christian heritage. (That God finally conferred the final installment of the Abrahamic blessing on America didn't hurt either. )

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Those values come from a strong Christian heritage.

It's true that the Enlightenment (and the concept of human rights and civil liberties conceived in that era) grew out of predominantly Christian societies, along with secular humanism and others. Most Western world views include some Christian heritage, and often bear distinct signs of Christian influences that contributed to their development.
However, that does not make human rights and civil liberties Christian concepts, let alone EXCLUSIVELY so.

(That God finally conferred the final installment of the Abrahamic blessing on America didn't hurt either. )

I don't quite know what brand of crazy this is, but you've got some truly megalomaniacal national myth rolling there, bro!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't quite know what brand of crazy this is, but you've got some truly megalomaniacal national myth rolling there, bro!

It was secular historians that labeled the incredible and unprecedented ascent of Britain and America the 'Anglo-Saxon Miracle'. I didn't. I just believe I know who is responsible for it.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Here's what the Constitution says: Two things congress may not do:

1) Pass legislation that establishes (creates, builds, sanctions...) a religion
2) Pass legislation prohibiting anyone from freely exercising their religion

That is what "separation of church and state" means Constitutionally. Nothing more.

This is true. IIRC Connecticut had a state church for several decades.

 

[Brak]

The problem is that Congress cannot pass laws establishing atheism as the state religion, either. Except that people argue that atheism is not a religion, but the absence thereof, so therefore atheism is exempt. I would argue till the end that that is not the case: atheism is a religion unto itself. It is a theology that denies the existence of God.

 

[Skavau]

The problem is that Congress cannot pass laws establishing atheism as the state religion, either. Except that people argue that atheism is not a religion, but the absence thereof, so therefore atheism is exempt. I would argue till the end that that is not the case: atheism is a religion unto itself. It is a theology that denies the existence of God.

Then you'd be wrong. 3 times.

Do you know the difference between a positive assertion and a lack of assertion? Do you even know what theology means? Do you know what involves the definition of 'religion'?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The problem is that Congress cannot pass laws establishing atheism as the state religion, either. Except that people argue that atheism is not a religion, but the absence thereof, so therefore atheism is exempt. I would argue till the end that that is not the case: atheism is a religion unto itself. It is a theology that denies the existence of God.

I agree that atheism should not be the "state religion", either. There simply should not be anything like a state religion at all, and each individual should be free to pursue whichever religion (or non-religion) she wants to pursue.

The part about atheism being a religion is nonsense, naturally.
There are religions that are atheistic (or at the very least apatheistic):
some branches of Buddhism, Confucianism, etc.
There are also some atheistic world views/ideologies that bear some resemblance to a religion, including foundational myths, eschatological myths and so forth: Communism is an obvious example of this kind.

But atheism in itself is far too general a descriptor to qualify as a religion.

 

[citizenthom]

But atheism in itself is far too general a descriptor to qualify as a religion.

If atheism is not a religion, neither are Hinduism and Daoism. Both those systems also start with a few simple principles but vary extremely widely in specific beliefs and practices, using multiple holy books and systems of worship.

Just food for thought.

 

[Skavau]

If atheism is not a religion, neither are Hinduism and Daoism. Both those systems also start with a few simple principles but vary extremely widely in specific beliefs and practices, using multiple holy books and systems of worship.

Just food for thought.

Is your point here that atheism is a religion or that Hinduism or Daoism are not religions? All atheism literally means is that one does not profess belief in the existence of a God(s). It means nothing more. How can (if your point is the former) constitute a religion?

 

[citizenthom]

My broader point is that when the Founders said "religion," they meant "sects of Christianity;" and if we are going to use any other definition (which in our society we should), it needs to be a consistent one.

 

[SithDoughnut]

If atheism is not a religion, neither are Hinduism and Daoism. Both those systems also start with a few simple principles but vary extremely widely in specific beliefs and practices, using multiple holy books and systems of worship.

Just food for thought.

So a single position on something counts as a religion?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

My broader point is that when the Founders said "religion," they meant "sects of Christianity;" and if we are going to use any other definition (which in our society we should), it needs to be a consistent one.

So freedom of religion means freedom to choose which Christian denomination to follow and nothing else? I'll choose gnostic christianity because it's the one that angers christians the most. Hail Abraxas and his lowly servants, YHWH and Satan!

 

[Steve Petersen]

Is your point here that atheism is a religion or that Hinduism or Daoism are not religions? All atheism literally means is that one does not profess belief in the existence of a God(s). It means nothing more. How can (if your point is the former) constitute a religion?

I think you are confusing agnosticism and atheism.

 

[Skavau]

I think you are confusing agnosticism and atheism.

No. Agnosticism is the position that one cannot know whether or not a God exists, whereas Atheism is the statement of disbelief concerning the existence of God. One does not preclude the other. You can have Agnostic Theists and Agnostic Atheists.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I think you are confusing agnosticism and atheism.

No it's exactly right. Atheism is a lack of a belief in gods. There are different brands of atheism though. Some people have a positive belief that no gods exist. This is strong or gnostic atheism. They "know" that no gods exist. Most atheists will tell you that a god could exist but until they have proof, there's no reason to believe in one. This is agnostic atheism.

Neither of them believe in a god but one of them has a positive belief that no god exists. There's a subtle but important difference.

On the other side of the isle, there are two different kinds of theist as well. The gnostic theist believes in a god and claims to have knowledge that a god exists. An agnostic theist has no positive knowledge or "proof" that a god exists but they believe in one. Deism is an example. They can't describe what god is and they can't prove that he exists, but they believe he does.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If atheism is not a religion, neither are Hinduism and Daoism. Both those systems also start with a few simple principles but vary extremely widely in specific beliefs and practices, using multiple holy books and systems of worship.

Just food for thought.

"Hinduism" is a label that's been coined by Europeans to describe the Indian religions in general, and has later been refined to refer specifically to the Vedic religions. As such, it should hardly be surprising that it is quite broadly defined.

Still, the religious nature of all schools of thought that are brought together under that term is quite apparent: you've got holidays, rituals, holy books, clergy, devotional art and music, all sorts of myth...
The list is quite long, actually.

Of course, we could water down the term "religion" to the point where it becomes basically indistinguishable from the term "world view", refering to every way of perceiving reality regardless of whether it entails an organized community, a set of scriptures, rituals or whatever. But I doubt that anybody could possibly wish to do that - especially not a religious person.