Separation of Church and State

[mmmcounts]

Is there any argument from some corners of Christianity to the effect that separation of church and state is an inferior option while a specific state religion is the superior option?

Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been some notable conflicts in which either side was clearly on opposite sides of this issue. Regarding this specific issue, it seems- from my perspective in 21st century America- that separation of church and state has been definitively shown to be the better option. Working from this assumption, it would seem that at any point in history where different groups of Christians were on opposite sides of this issue, the ones that fought for separation of church and state were on the right side whereas the ones that fought for the hand-in-glove option were on the wrong side.

Would anyone like to interact with my working assumption? What reasons do you have for thinking it's a good one, if that is applicable? And for those who favor state religion as opposed to separation of church and state, what reasons do you have for thinking the hand-in-glovers were on the right side all along while their opposition was on the wrong side of the issue?

 

[cottom]

Here in the U.S we have the First Amendment that protects religion from government interference.

A through reading of FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment
will answer you question with authority. Check the caselaw web site.

Chaplain Van

 

[drjean]

The phrase of "separation of church and state" is highly misunderstood and misused. It was not part of the founding father's vocabulary in the definition that it is in more current (errant) ruling.

Jefferson first put it in writing in a letter to someone who was afraid of the government intruding into one's rights of faith. It was the assurance that government would not be able to determine what religion someone chose to follow. Remember, the Church of England was a political organization.

We are a Constitutional Republic (not a democracy btw) and the original intent was to keep politics from ruling church... however, it was customary and expected for those of faith to rule according to it, and our foundational documents call upon God to lead and guide us and the politicians. The military band played for the choir and church services held in the halls of Congress (I believe I have the right building.)

It wasn't intended to keep our faith out of politics, but keep the political government out of our following a faith. This is one of the key reasons the USA became and has been the greatest nations in the world. Following God is imperative to our existence.

 

[Resha Caner]

Is there any argument from some corners of Christianity to the effect that separation of church and state is an inferior option while a specific state religion is the superior option?

Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been some notable conflicts in which either side was clearly on opposite sides of this issue. Regarding this specific issue, it seems- from my perspective in 21st century America- that separation of church and state has been definitively shown to be the better option. Working from this assumption, it would seem that at any point in history where different groups of Christians were on opposite sides of this issue, the ones that fought for separation of church and state were on the right side whereas the ones that fought for the hand-in-glove option were on the wrong side.

Would anyone like to interact with my working assumption? What reasons do you have for thinking it's a good one, if that is applicable? And for those who favor state religion as opposed to separation of church and state, what reasons do you have for thinking the hand-in-glovers were on the right side all along while their opposition was on the wrong side of the issue?

As in all things, the answer is not either/or. I once heard a comment that the American version of separation has made religion the ward of the state. It has no rights, and depends on the good graces of the government, which has been in decline for quite some time. I think that is close to the truth. You can see a more extreme version of this in Turkey where churches aren't allowed to own property.

At the same time, I wouldn't want a state religion. The abuses of Medieval Europe show what a bad idea that is, and I've experienced first hand what the state churches of modern Britain and Germany are like - not good. They're impotent.

So, I'd like to see something with better balance between the extremes, where religion is allowed some kind of civic role. My idea would be to instantiate it at the state level. Then, you could have a "Lutheran" state, a "Methodist" state, ... and yes even a "Mormon" state (don't we have that already) a "Muslim" state, and an "atheist" state.

 

[visionary]

Is there any argument from some corners of Christianity to the effect that separation of church and state is an inferior option while a specific state religion is the superior option?

Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been some notable conflicts in which either side was clearly on opposite sides of this issue. Regarding this specific issue, it seems- from my perspective in 21st century America- that separation of church and state has been definitively shown to be the better option. Working from this assumption, it would seem that at any point in history where different groups of Christians were on opposite sides of this issue, the ones that fought for separation of church and state were on the right side whereas the ones that fought for the hand-in-glove option were on the wrong side.

Would anyone like to interact with my working assumption? What reasons do you have for thinking it's a good one, if that is applicable? And for those who favor state religion as opposed to separation of church and state, what reasons do you have for thinking the hand-in-glovers were on the right side all along while their opposition was on the wrong side of the issue?

And all our forefathers were trying to do is make sure there would be no Churchstate ... not what we have today where everything church must be as far from the state as the state can make it.

 

[pathfinder777]

Is there any argument from some corners of Christianity to the effect that separation of church and state is an inferior option while a specific state religion is the superior option?

Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been some notable conflicts in which either side was clearly on opposite sides of this issue. Regarding this specific issue, it seems- from my perspective in 21st century America- that separation of church and state has been definitively shown to be the better option. Working from this assumption, it would seem that at any point in history where different groups of Christians were on opposite sides of this issue, the ones that fought for separation of church and state were on the right side whereas the ones that fought for the hand-in-glove option were on the wrong side.

Would anyone like to interact with my working assumption? What reasons do you have for thinking it's a good one, if that is applicable? And for those who favor state religion as opposed to separation of church and state, what reasons do you have for thinking the hand-in-glovers were on the right side all along while their opposition was on the wrong side of the issue?

In the USA unlike Saudi Arabia and Iran its hard to imagine a theocracy considering the religious diversity within this country. With the exception of stopping abortion i think all the other outcomes of such a system would marginalize those of different religious and philisophical viewpoints.

 

[PaladinValer]

The phrase of "separation of church and state" is highly misunderstood and misused. It was not part of the founding father's vocabulary in the definition that it is in more current (errant) ruling.

Problem: a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

In other words, the words don't have to be there for the idea to be there. Just the philosophy. Since the philosophy was there, then whether the exact wording of it as "separation of church and state" was uttered or not is inconsequential.

Jefferson first put it in writing in a letter to someone who was afraid of the government intruding into one's rights of faith.

Um, Jefferson was one of the Founding Fathers.

You just contradicted yourself...

It was the assurance that government would not be able to determine what religion someone chose to follow. Remember, the Church of England was a political organization.

1. The Church of England isn't political. It is spiritual. Non-Anglicans have some strange ideas of what it means for the monarch of England to be the "Supreme Governor" of the CoE (note, only the CoE, not the Anglican Communion). It has nothing to do with being an Anglican version of Pope, but merely 1) The Pope has no such authority over it and 2) That the State have a united "diverse" Church. The monarch has no real power over the ecclesial, doctrinal, etc, affairs...none. The only "power" Elizabeth II currently has is to install the Archbishop of Canterbury, and it is pomp and circumstance, nothing more.

2. Jefferson had a lot more to say as well. Keep quoting. Mind you, he was a Deist, not a Christian.

We are a Constitutional Republic (not a democracy btw) and the original intent was to keep politics from ruling church... however, it was customary and expected for those of faith to rule according to it, and our foundational documents call upon God to lead and guide us and the politicians. The military band played for the choir and church services held in the halls of Congress (I believe I have the right building.)

Sorry, the intent was to prevent a national state religion of any denomination, sect, or entire faith. That means no promoting any one over the other. It also meant not allowing the State to control what the people were to believe, especially since many of the colonies were founded for religious purposes and that the Founding Fathers were children of the Enlightenment. The idea that you have here is not true whatsoever and if you took the time to study the Enlightenment and, in context, the Founding Fathers, you'd see that.

It wasn't intended to keep our faith out of politics, but keep the political government out of our following a faith.

Complete tripe. See the above.

This is one of the key reasons the USA became and has been the greatest nations in the world. Following God is imperative to our existence.

They didn't follow Christianity however. Most had, at best, a Unitarian or Deist view of the Divine, and those who were Christians were liberal or nominal for the time.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Sorry, Didn't post properly.

 

[TomZzyzx]

The phrase of "separation of church and state" is highly misunderstood and misused. It was not part of the founding father's vocabulary in the definition that it is in more current (errant) ruling.

Problem: a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

In other words, the words don't have to be there for the idea to be there. Just the philosophy. Since the philosophy was there, then whether the exact wording of it as "separation of church and state" was uttered or not is inconsequential.

Um, Jefferson was one of the Founding Fathers.

You just contradicted yourself...

1. The Church of England isn't political. It is spiritual. Non-Anglicans have some strange ideas of what it means for the monarch of England to be the "Supreme Governor" of the CoE (note, only the CoE, not the Anglican Communion). It has nothing to do with being an Anglican version of Pope, but merely 1) The Pope has no such authority over it and 2) That the State have a united "diverse" Church. The monarch has no real power over the ecclesial, doctrinal, etc, affairs...none. The only "power" Elizabeth II currently has is to install the Archbishop of Canterbury, and it is pomp and circumstance, nothing more.

2. Jefferson had a lot more to say as well. Keep quoting. Mind you, he was a Deist, not a Christian.

Sorry, the intent was to prevent a national state religion of any denomination, sect, or entire faith. That means no promoting any one over the other. It also meant not allowing the State to control what the people were to believe, especially since many of the colonies were founded for religious purposes and that the Founding Fathers were children of the Enlightenment. The idea that you have here is not true whatsoever and if you took the time to study the Enlightenment and, in context, the Founding Fathers, you'd see that.

Complete tripe. See the above.

They didn't follow Christianity however. Most had, at best, a Unitarian or Deist view of the Divine, and those who were Christians were liberal or nominal for the time.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, that last post did not come out right. Hopefully it does this time.

It is you who doesn't know your history. The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson did not attend.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith. (John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 43.)

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

I guess they did follow Christianity after all.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Sorry about the last two posts. I don't know why it didn't post correctly. I guess I don't know how to delete a post. My reply starts with, "It is you who doesn't know your history."

 

[PaladinValer]

It is you who doesn't know your history. The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson did not attend.

Sorry, but 1) I am a historian with a degree 2) the Founding Fathers deals with a broader group of individuals by many historians. Seven are often named as specifically key who were the figureheads and inspirations of them all: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington. 3) The Declaration of Independence has no legal sway in our country; you are mistaking it for the Constitution (and, before that, the Articles of Confederation). The Constitution mentions nothing of God, religion, the Bible, a Creator, or Divinity. 4) Jefferson was the one who wrote it, and that means we must read it as he would have understood his terms about religion. Since he was not a Christian but a Deist, we know what he meant.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith. (John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 43.)

Again, since Jefferson wrote it, we know what was meant by it.

Affiliation unfortunately didn't mean loyalty even then to the doctrinal positions.

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

You're knowledge of my church has much to be desired.

I guess they did follow Christianity after all.

1) The DoI has no legal binding 2) Jefferson wrote it. Therefore, the religious affiliations of its signers signed on to his words and meanings thereof.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Sorry, but 1) I am a historian with a degree 2) the Founding Fathers deals with a broader group of individuals by many historians. Seven are often named as specifically key who were the figureheads and inspirations of them all: John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington. 3) The Declaration of Independence has no legal sway in our country; you are mistaking it for the Constitution (and, before that, the Articles of Confederation). The Constitution mentions nothing of God, religion, the Bible, a Creator, or Divinity. 4) Jefferson was the one who wrote it, and that means we must read it as he would have understood his terms about religion. Since he was not a Christian but a Deist, we know what he meant.

Again, since Jefferson wrote it, we know what was meant by it.

Affiliation unfortunately didn't mean loyalty even then to the doctrinal positions.

You're knowledge of my church has much to be desired.

1) The DoI has no legal binding 2) Jefferson wrote it. Therefore, the religious affiliations of its signers signed on to his words and meanings thereof.

Since I didn't mention the Declaration of Independence how can I be mistaking it for the Constitution? Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. Like I said before, Jefferson wasn't present at the Constitutional Convention. I looks like you are the one mistaking the Dol for the Constitution.

 

[99percentatheism]

No matter what 18 century men meant about forming a more perfect union in the 1700's, what is being done in the 21st century by atheist groups, secular humanist orgs and lberal theologians, to deny a public voice to Christians is a sham to constitutioanl rights and a travesty towards an open and free society.

 

[PaladinValer]

Since I didn't mention the Declaration of Independence how can I be mistaking it for the Constitution?

Try doing a little research: Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only the DoI mentions religion in any way. You therefore implicitly included it if you are talking about the Founding Fathers, whether you realize it or not.

Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. Like I said before, Jefferson wasn't present at the Constitutional Convention. I looks like you are the one mistaking the Dol for the Constitution.

I think not. My argument still holds: only the DoI mentions religion or religious figure but the intent and philosophy is Deist, the Constitution is mute, and the Article of Confederation were made inconsequential too early. Furthermore, the ringleaders of the actual philosophical intent and meaning to our government and its function and polity were all non-Christians or nominal Christians except John Jay. Those ringleaders include Thomas Jefferson.

The US isn't a Christian country. That was made very clear early in our countries history with the Treaty of Tripoli, article 11, which was signed in 1796 by President John Adams and was ratified by the Congress according to strict Constitutional provisions.

Case closed.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Try doing a little research: Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only the DoI mentions religion in any way. You therefore implicitly included it if you are talking about the Founding Fathers, whether you realize it or not.

I think not. My argument still holds: only the DoI mentions religion or religious figure but the intent and philosophy is Deist, the Constitution is mute, and the Article of Confederation were made inconsequential too early. Furthermore, the ringleaders of the actual philosophical intent and meaning to our government and its function and polity were all non-Christians or nominal Christians except John Jay. Those ringleaders include Thomas Jefferson.

The US isn't a Christian country. That was made very clear early in our countries history with the Treaty of Tripoli, article 11, which was signed in 1796 by President John Adams and was ratified by the Congress according to strict Constitutional provisions.

Case closed.

Case open...

Founding Fathers, capital F's, refers only to the members of the Constitutional Convention. Founding fathers, lower case f's, can refer to anyone involved in the founding of The United States. By the way, my research never includes the unreliable Wikipedia. Again when you talk about the Founding Fathers, capital F's, you are never talking about the Dol.

By, "I Think not," do you mean that Thomas Jefferson didn't write the Declaration of Independence or that he was present at the Constitutional Convention?

As I mentioned before, 93 percent of the Founding Fathers were Christian and of those 70 percent were more then nominal Christians. And to add to them, George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, John Witherspoon, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson--their personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements are replete with quotations showing that these thinkers had political philosophies deeply influenced by Christianity.

It looks like The United States was indeed founded by a large majority of Christians.

 

[diychristian]

2. Jefferson had a lot more to say as well. Keep quoting. Mind you, he was a Deist, not a Christian.

The more I learn about Jefferson the more he sounds like a Christian. He allotted Federal money to build a church and pay priest for mission to Indians, he made a few national proclamations for prayer and thanksgiving, he prayed at his inaugural addresses, he attended church services at the u.s. capitol building almost every sunday from the time services started there through his presidency, and the amended Bible he is often criticized for was actually a collection of Jesus' sayings used for evangelism purposes. For the Declaration of Independence Jefferson pulled heavily from George Mason's writing of the Virginia Declartion of Rights, which does mention "Christian forebearance". Also by saying in a letter to Baptist ministers, "Separation of church and state", he was appealling to a catch phrase from a couple of popular sermons of that time.

 

[diychristian]

"We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!" John Hancock and John Adams.

George Washington added to his oath of office, "I swear, so help me God."

Samuel Adams appealled to the first meeting of Congress to open with a prayer (and they did).

Patrick Henry is quoted as saying, "...this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians."

Samuel Chase (signer of DoI) gave a profession of his Christian faith before taking his seat as Chief Justice of Maryland.

"I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . " from last will and testament of John Langdon (Signer of Constitution)

"I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . ." -Roger Sherman (signer of DoI and Constitution)

What founding fathers are you talking about? They were nearly all Christians if not they extolled Christian beliefs.

 

[PaladinValer]

"We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!" John Hancock and John Adams.

Spurious. This is supposed to have been said in reply to Major Pitcairn's demand to “Disperse, ye villains, lay down your arms in the name of George the Sovereign King of England.” Clark's own account makes no mention or this (or any other) reply, however. “No king but King Jesus” was the slogan of the Fifth Monarchists during the Interregnum in England, but there is little evidence for its use during the American Revolution." (As quoted from John Adams - Wikiquote)

Furthermore, he did say: "Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."

also, "Spent an hour in the beginning of the evening at Major Gardiner's, where it was thought that the design of Christianity was not to make men good riddle-solvers, or good mystery-mongers, but good men, good magistrates, and good subjects, good husbands and good wives, good parents and good children, good masters and good servants. The following questions may be answered some time or other, namely, — Where do we find a precept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods? Convocations? Councils? Decrees? Creeds? Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and whole cart-loads of other trumpery that we find religion incumbered with in these days?"

So much with the Nicene Creed...so much with the denouncing of the heresies. Just morality...that's pure Deism right there. All quotes sourced from the same as proof of the non-quotes).

Also, Patric Henry didn't say it either.

George Washington added to his oath of office, "I swear, so help me God."

That's not proof he was Christian...a Jew could say that. No proof whatsoever.

George Washington was a Mason, I might add. Completely unorthodox there.

Samuel Adams appealled to the first meeting of Congress to open with a prayer (and they did).

Again, that isn't proof. Unitarians pray, and many Deists thought religion was good for morals without needing anything divine. Again, no proof whatsoever.

Patrick Henry is quoted as saying, "...this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians."

Nope. "This has been cited at some sites as being in a speech to the House of Burgesses in May 1765, but the date and quote are both spurious. Patrick Henry never said anything like it; it was written in the 1950s. The writer David Barton misread a book and became in The Myth of Separation (1988) the first person to claim Henry wrote it (see "Fake Quotations: Patrick Henry on “Religionists”" (2009)). On internal evidence alone it could not have been written in the 18th century, for it is anachronistic to have Henry speaking of the colony of Virginia in 1765 as a "nation" that afforded "peoples of other faiths" the "freedom of worship." In fact this statement first appeared in the April 1956 issue of The Virginian in a piece partially about, not by, Patrick Henry, as the next sentence clearly shows: "In the spoken and written words of our noble founders and forefathers, we find symbolic expressions of their Christian faith. The above quotation from the will of Patrick Henry is a notable example." (The "above quotation from the will" which is cited, is also quoted here, as a quote dated 20 November 1798.)" (from: Patrick Henry - Wikiquote)

Samuel Chase (signer of DoI) gave a profession of his Christian faith before taking his seat as Chief Justice of Maryland.

No source provided.

"I commend my soul to the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus, the beloved Son of the Father, who died and rose again that He might be the Lord of the dead and of the living . . . " from last will and testament of John Langdon (Signer of Constitution)[/'quote]

Yes, all well and good; 1.

"I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . ." -Roger Sherman (signer of DoI and Constitution)

2 then. Out of far, far more...although that is not the point.

What founding fathers are you talking about?

James Madison wrote:

• Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
  • Letter to Edward Livingston (1822-07-10) (source: James Madison - Wikiquote)

Thomas Jefferson is a KNOWN Deist.


George Washington was a Mason.


Benjamin Franklin called himself a Deist.


Thomas Paine was...flaming...

They were nearly all Christians if not they extolled Christian beliefs.

While some were, that doesn't mean the country is Christian. Furthermore, the Treaty is proof positive.

 

[diychristian]

As for the philosophy that lead to our DoI, Thomas Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense" gave a very Biblical argument for our seccession from England. He even had language in that writing alluding to him being a member of the Christian community. While I grant you that he was likely a deist, he was a deist in the Christian sense and not of any other world religion sense.

In his last will and testament he professed to believe in God and asked if possible to be buried on the Quaker's grounds.

It should also be realized that this desire to declare independence or this thought of inalienable rights or any foundational beliefs present in our constitution didn't happen over night, they weren't pulled from thin air, they grew out of the colonies, which grew out of the pulpits. In many of the townships the preacher was the voice of the community. Towns were built by church congregations. Consensus were taken of the early colonies they listed the town,population, its church and often the preacher.

 

[diychristian]

While some were, that doesn't mean the country is Christian. Furthermore, the Treaty is proof positive

.

In regards to your "treaty" relic. I'm sure you know, that statement was added by Barlow and didn't appear in the original. If read in its entirety that article is meant to distant the U.S. from the atrocities of the European Christians. At that time it was muslim pirates holding christian sailors for prisoners. We were trying to avoid another Crusade.

That treaty was ratified under Adams, who said,
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature", in a letter to Jefferson.

Adams in other letters seemed remorseful about the Treaty.