Thanksgiving for the separation of Church and State

[Ringo84]

Okay, apparently someone needs to explain the format of posts here. That which a person posts, is just pretty much normal text. Things they quote are indented, italicized, and have a blue bar next to them. I hope that helps. If it doesn't, please find someone to assist you.

What's your point in bringing up the above quote? What do you believe about the Separation between church and state?
Ringo

 

[CTD]

What's your point in bringing up the above quote? What do you believe about the Separation between church and state?
Ringo

Which quote are you talking about? I quoted the link provided by your fellow. I've also quoted Jefferson and Adams.

In any case, I am not really confident I can explain things so you'll understand, since any explanation I give will consist of more words, and you can simply decline to understand them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ringo84 quote

I've seen people use this quote before. What does that even mean - that the Constitution only apples to people who are moral and/or religious? That's ridiculous!
Ringo

Response

The concept of liberty for a Christian is be free from the burden of sin.

The concept of liberty for an Atheist is to be free from the Christian restraints that are necessary for a society to survive.

The main restraint that Atheists want eliminated is sexual restraint. Atheists are the free love people that advocate Adultery and Homosexuality, even though it is obvious that Adultery has produced the 40% illegitimacy rate in America and Homosexuality has produced over 2 million deaths per year due to AIDS.

Republicans have not proved they totally support Christian Principles, but Democrats have proved they "do not" support Christian Principles, because the Democratic Party supports abortion and homosexuality that are contrary to the Bible.

No Christian should ever vote for any Democrat, because the Democratic party supports Socialism and Atheism.

You are implying that homosexuality itself is responsible for 2 million deaths per year due to AIDS. But you never provide any evidence for that extraordinary claim.

 

[citizenthom]

Really? God personally ruled the original thirteen colonies? That's an aspect of American history I'd never heard.

I found this interpretation of "theocracy" very interesting. Are you saying that to be "theocratic" a nation must not only follow religious RULES but also be factually correct about both God's existence and his characteristics? By that argument no atheist could actually accuse a Christian of desiring a theocracy, because atheists do not believe there is a God there to rule over it.

He's right, BTW: all 13 original state Constitutions established Christianity as a state religion, via declarations, oaths of office requiring fidelity to Christian theology, and the like. Maryland of course was expressly Catholic. The federal Constitution did away with these not because the Founders wanted to get rid of the church's involvement with the state, but because they did not want a single Christian denomination to control any given state or the federal government.

I've seen people use this quote before. What does that even mean - that the Constitution only apples to people who are moral and/or religious? That's ridiculous!
Ringo

The Founding Fathers were in agreement that our Constitution only works if some authority independent of the government--namely the church--teaches and enforces morality on the citizens. Otherwise two major problems arise: 1.) democratic elections fail to identify moral and trustworthy leaders, because the populace is not concerned enough about morality to require it; and 2.) we can no longer afford the restraints we put on our criminal justice system because there is no moral deterrent to crime, and no way to control ill behaviors our Constitution does not allow to be criminalized (most especially the abuse of free speech).

The flat-out historical fact is that our Founding Fathers did legislate against a background of Christianity as the dominant religion and as an active and vocal social force, and that without it our Constitution does not function as they intended it to. They did not want the church involved with the state; but they knew the church needed to be an active and dominant part of society for the state to function as intended.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I found this interpretation of "theocracy" very interesting. Are you saying that to be "theocratic" a nation must not only follow religious RULES but also be factually correct about both God's existence and his characteristics? By that argument no atheist could actually accuse a Christian of desiring a theocracy, because atheists do not believe there is a God there to rule over it.

He's right, BTW: all 13 original state Constitutions established Christianity as a state religion, via declarations, oaths of office requiring fidelity to Christian theology, and the like. Maryland of course was expressly Catholic. The federal Constitution did away with these not because the Founders wanted to get rid of the church's involvement with the state, but because they did not want a single Christian denomination to control any given state or the federal government.



The Founding Fathers were in agreement that our Constitution only works if some authority independent of the government--namely the church--teaches and enforces morality on the citizens. Otherwise two major problems arise: 1.) democratic elections fail to identify moral and trustworthy leaders, because the populace is not concerned enough about morality to require it; and 2.) we can no longer afford the restraints we put on our criminal justice system because there is no moral deterrent to crime, and no way to control ill behaviors our Constitution does not allow to be criminalized (most especially the abuse of free speech).

The flat-out historical fact is that our Founding Fathers did legislate against a background of Christianity as the dominant religion and as an active and vocal social force, and that without it our Constitution does not function as they intended it to. They did not want the church involved with the state; but they knew the church needed to be an active and dominant part of society for the state to function as intended.

All well and good for the Founders and their time, but things have changed, and many people no longer take the Church to be their source of moral guidance.

 

[Ringo84]

since any explanation I give will consist of more words, and you can simply decline to understand them.

Yeah...not putting up with that snideness. We're done.

He's right, BTW: all 13 original state Constitutions established Christianity as a state religion, via declarations, oaths of office requiring fidelity to Christian theology, and the like. Maryland of course was expressly Catholic. The federal Constitution did away with these not because the Founders wanted to get rid of the church's involvement with the state, but because they did not want a single Christian denomination to control any given state or the federal government.

No. The Founders were pretty clear with their desire that the church - not just any denomination - remain separate from the state.

The Founding Fathers were in agreement that our Constitution only works if some authority independent of the government--namely the church--teaches and enforces morality on the citizens. Otherwise two major problems arise: 1.) democratic elections fail to identify moral and trustworthy leaders, because the populace is not concerned enough about morality to require it; and 2.) we can no longer afford the restraints we put on our criminal justice system because there is no moral deterrent to crime, and no way to control ill behaviors our Constitution does not allow to be criminalized (most especially the abuse of free speech).

The flat-out historical fact is that our Founding Fathers did legislate against a background of Christianity as the dominant religion and as an active and vocal social force, and that without it our Constitution does not function as they intended it to. They did not want the church involved with the state; but they knew the church needed to be an active and dominant part of society for the state to function as intended.

I don't dispute that the church should have an active role in society, but I question the belief that the Constitution is "only" for a religious people. Where does that leave the non-religious? Without rights?
Ringo

 

[David Evarts]

Just a thought for those wishing to establish a "Christian Nation." As doing so would be the greatest threat to Christianity,trying to protect Christianity from "atheists" or other threats by establishing a theocracy, is a bit like dealing with the fly you imagine to be sitting on your forehead by firing a bazooka at your forehead. Separating temporal power from control of or by religous leaders is still the strongest defense of freedom of conscience and thus Christianity. If you'd like a religous renaissance, perhaps ypu could look more closely at where your understanding of the Bible and actions don't fit with those asked for by Christ, are unkind and illogical. Clearing Christianity of it's negative associations with politicians (usually Republicans) and apolagizing for our lack of humility and human mistakes would also be likley to reinvigorate our souls and churches and make the beleif system attractive to others.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." -Pogo

 

[citizenthom]

All well and good for the Founders and their time, but things have changed, and many people no longer take the Church to be their source of moral guidance.

Which is why our society no longer functions as the Founders envisioned--why, for instance, we've seen the rise of "white-collar crime" for which our laws really have no answer, why we can't keep up with the rise in even normal crime, why our elected officials continue to degenerate in terms of honesty and morality, why our governments continue to expand their reach and power for the benefit of said corrupt officials, etc. These are the foreseeable consequences of a society without concrete, visible moral guidance.

 

[tulc]

Which is why our society no longer functions as the Founders envisioned--why, for instance, we've seen the rise of "white-collar crime" for which our laws really have no answer, why we can't keep up with the rise in even normal crime, why our elected officials continue to degenerate in terms of honesty and morality, why our governments continue to expand their reach and power for the benefit of said corrupt officials, etc. These are the foreseeable consequences of a society without concrete, visible moral guidance.

...like Israel in the Old Testament? Or is there an example from history of the Nation that never had corruption in it? Because I'm not aware of any. If you could supply and example or two it might help.
tulc(always likes examples)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Which is why our society no longer functions as the Founders envisioned--why, for instance, we've seen the rise of "white-collar crime" for which our laws really have no answer, why we can't keep up with the rise in even normal crime, why our elected officials continue to degenerate in terms of honesty and morality, why our governments continue to expand their reach and power for the benefit of said corrupt officials, etc. These are the foreseeable consequences of a society without concrete, visible moral guidance.

Who said that society doesn't have moral guidance? You seem to labor under the assumption that the only way for society to have some semblance of morality is for it to move in step with the Church. Moral guidance still exists. The Church has no monopoly on it. And the fact that society no longer functions as the Founders envisioned isn't always going to be a bad thing. The Founders, as wise as they were, could not foresee all ends.

 

[citizenthom]

Who said that society doesn't have moral guidance? You seem to labor under the assumption that the only way for society to have some semblance of morality is for it to move in step with the Church.

I never said that; I said the church was the substitute moral authority the Founding Fathers believed would make up for the lack of a dominant, authoritarian government--the traditional and more common means to control men's evil nature. You have to have one strong, largely agreed-on source of morality for society to function. Relativism results in moral chaos.

As for examples thereof, Tulc, Israel is a good start: the Tanakh records that during periods of religious degradation, crime, malice, and corruption reigned in Israel, whereas in times of religious revival there was peace and prosperity.

Keep looking throughout history and you'll see that either a strong, iron-handed government or a central moral authority is always behind a successful society, and the absence thereof usually spells degradation and eventual collapse. The Roman Empire maintained peace through massive military and government presence, and collapsed when that presence fell apart. The Ottoman Empire survived with a combination of enforced Islam and a powerful monarchy, and fell apart without the latter (and modern examples suggest that widespread Islam alone is not enough to promote either peace or prosperity, FWIW). China's central government has always imposed religious and moral singularity, depending on who was in control at a given time--whether it was through Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, or in the modern epoch, atheism. And early American society prospered and expanded more quickly than any in history because of a strong shared morality, spread and encouraged by the dominant Christian religion.

You need one or the other. Our Founders relied on the Christian churches to spread common morality rather than the government. Without it, our classical liberal system would not/will not/does not function the way it should.

 

[Gishin]

Which is why our society no longer functions as the Founders envisioned--why, for instance, we've seen the rise of "white-collar crime" for which our laws really have no answer, why we can't keep up with the rise in even normal crime, why our elected officials continue to degenerate in terms of honesty and morality, why our governments continue to expand their reach and power for the benefit of said corrupt officials, etc. These are the foreseeable consequences of a society without concrete, visible moral guidance.

Oddly enough, America has much more crime than some other, less religious countries.

 

[tulc]

As for examples thereof, Tulc, Israel is a good start: the Tanakh records that during periods of religious degradation, crime, malice, and corruption reigned in Israel, whereas in times of religious revival there was peace and prosperity.

Really? Because the what I see in Scripture is long stretches of bad things interspersed with the occasional "good ruler".

Keep looking throughout history and you'll see that either a strong, iron-handed government or a central moral authority is always behind a successful society, and the absence thereof usually spells degradation and eventual collapse. The Roman Empire maintained peace through massive military and government presence, and collapsed when that presence fell apart. The Ottoman Empire survived with a combination of enforced Islam and a powerful monarchy, and fell apart without the latter (and modern examples suggest that widespread Islam alone is not enough to promote either peace or prosperity, FWIW).

Interesting premise, I think it might need it's own thread to discuss this idea more.

China's central government has always imposed religious and moral singularity, depending on who was in control at a given time--whether it was through Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, or in the modern epoch, atheism.

Not sure I agree but this is also something to look into.

And early American society prospered and expanded more quickly than any in history because of a strong shared morality, spread and encouraged by the dominant Christian religion.

Well...and the fact they had superior weapons and a willingness to exterminate anyone in their way certainly helped also.

You need one or the other. Our Founders relied on the Christian churches to spread common morality rather than the government. Without it, our classical liberal system would not/will not/does not function the way it should.

That may work while expanding but once you reach the end of that expansion or the end of a common enemy? It all tends to fall apart then because then? Your enemy is your fellow citizens with their different ideas. I can put up with a heretic as long as I need him but once I settle down and realize he expects to have the same rights we "right thinking citizens" have? Well, lets just say "all equal under the Law" only goes so far.
tulc(is going to look into your second premise)

 

[citizenthom]

Oddly enough, America has much more crime than some other, less religious countries.

That's my exact point: because Christianity is no longer as strong a public force in America, and because we do not have as large and authoritarian a government as other countries, we have less control over social mores. You either need an iron fist or a wooden cross if you want low crime rates.

 

[CTD]

Who said that society doesn't have moral guidance?

Who needs to say it? We all have eyes.

The Founders, as wise as they were, could not foresee all ends.

I'd say they got a lot more right than any of the superficial anti-American revisionists.

How 'bout people find out what they said, why they said it, before concluding they were wrong on any matter?

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson

I have yet to meet a scoffer who'll address Jefferson's question.

 

[tulc]

How 'bout people find out what they said, why they said it, before concluding they were wrong on any matter?

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson

I have yet to meet a scoffer who'll address Jefferson's question.

I agree, slavery is wrong and a Nation is in peril as long as it's allowed to exist
tulc(isn't that what the quote is about)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The mortal shame of homosexuality is that the AIDS epidemic was totally preventable. The book and movie, "The Band Played On" tells of how the Center for Disease Control had clearly identified the pathway of AIDS into America in 1983 and had asked the San Francisco government to close the homosexual bath houses that were spreading AIDS. The San Francisco government refused.

Amazon.com: And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic (9780312241353): Randy Shilts, William Greider: Books

I'm still waiting for the evidence, Clirus. That isn't proof for the claim that two millions deaths due to AIDS are because of homosexuality.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's my exact point: because Christianity is no longer as strong a public force in America, and because we do not have as large and authoritarian a government as other countries, we have less control over social mores. You either need an iron fist or a wooden cross if you want low crime rates.

... Or just a moral center that need not be religious.

 

[CTD]

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, drafted by Thomas Jefferson
..........

An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

and finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
-------------------------------------

It's noteworthy that those who seek to suppress Christianity pry the phrase "separation of church and state" out of context, distort it, and try to peddle it as meaning the opposite of what its author intended.

Jefferson considered the above document one of the greatest achievements of his life, and instructed that it be mentioned on the marker for his grave.

The reasoning is sound and there's nothing at all which would restrict religion in the manners advocated by America's enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[seashale76]

My own two cents.

The first white settlers (if you don't count the two failed attempts in 1587 and before on Roanoke Island which also had nothing to do with religion) that stayed did not do so because of religious persecution. They were part of the Virginia Company and settled in Jamestown in 1607. They were Protestant, but they were all part of the Anglican Church. Suspected Catholics in Jamestown didn't go over so well (obviously they were Spanish spies you know). So, the First British Colony in North America was Virginia. It was started by a company called The Virginia Company. The goal wasn't religious freedom, but to make money for the shareholders. Groups liked the Baptists may have come to the Americas for religious freedom, but they were stoned in places like Virginia. Just like the later colony in Massachusetts (c. 1620), who weren't Anglican and didn't allow anyone to dissent from their beliefs (persecuting and killing them). In other words, many who came for religious freedom didn't want to extend the same courtesy to those who didn't agree with them once they had their own little colonies. More than one colony completely supported and enforced the British State Church. Also, it is factual that these oppressed groups who started their own colonies completely suppressed dissenting opinions/beliefs within their jurisdictions, pre-independence. This is why the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom (1786) was such an important and innovative piece of legislation (as mentioned in the post above).

A while back I read The Faiths of our Fathers: What America's Founders Really Believed by Alf J. Mapp, Jr. and it gave some well researched insight with documented primary sources from various of our founding fathers.

The Constitution was written with the idea in mind of the separation of Church and state. These men were both religious and irreligious in their thinking and were influenced by the Enlightenment, their own upbringings, and sometimes persecution for their faith (as was the case with Charles Carroll of Carrollton in that as a Catholic, even though he was extremely wealthy and superbly educated, he wasn't allowed the rights of a citizen in pre-Revolutionary Maryland; despite this he became respected and was a signer of the Declaration of Independence). The idea was freedom of religious belief (though rights of atheists lagged behind the rights of theists in general), but there was a certain virtuous morality that they thought society should adhere to in general, which they thought Judeo-Christian ideas to encompass, but many times these men held that these same ideas were espoused by the Greeks, and at times held them in even higher esteem.

Anyway, if you could imagine, Virginia (being formerly under British rule with the people taxed for the State Church Anglican/Episcopalian) still had such taxation in place shortly after the Revolution. Those such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were responsible for the passing of the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom (by the Virginia General Assembly in January 1786). Groups such as the Baptists and the Presbyterians were all for it for obvious reasons (they were persecuted and taxed for a church they weren't part of). The Jews and Catholics welcomed such news as well.

Some of the founding fathers disagreed with each other and some hoped that the government wouldn't take the same turn as the French did regarding religion. Most were more content to form a government that allowed everyone to hold to their own beliefs. They were a diverse group of men religiously (even those who were officially Anglican/Episcopalian) and they could all agree that they should have the right to disagree without being persecuted or taxed for it. For example, James Madison was against the setting up of the chaplaincy in Congress, as he thought it violated the very legislation that gave everyone religious freedom (and he wasn't wrong, imo).

As to what I think: Interesting thread. I agree with the premise of the OP, though I also agree that I don't really see people attempting to start a theocracy here either (and I think people have a romanticized view of history that doesn't truly reflect reality). I think there should still be a general morality that we all appeal to, that shouldn't be forgotten even in the realm of politics. However, I don't want an established state religion in this country either. Chances are, it wouldn't be even remotely like my own beliefs, and I certainly don't want to have the whatever is popular and widely promoted in the heterodox Christianity of America shoved down my throat.