Should Church and state be separate?

[Universalist Catholic]

As in religion not get involved in government matters, and vice versa.  I'm aware that there has been much controversy over some Fundamentalist groups pushing the Government to become more theocratic, and model the government based on their values.  As we have seen in the past, and in the modern times, blending politics with spiritual matters is really not safe.  Most of those politically motivated churches are all traditionalist, who seem more interested in the letter of the law, and their hardcore fire and brimstone supremist ideologies. 

[WhiteWings]

Difficult question. I think my answer it's impossible to seperate them. And in a way it's even undemocratic to seperate religion and government. Plus it's for exemple often hard to say some law has a religous background.
Few examples.

- An anti abortion law is fine if it's because humanitarian rights of unborn babies but if you motivate the same law with "The Bible says so" it's wrong.
- Right wing, left wing and chicken wing idealogies are just opinions like religion.
- "blending politics with spiritual matters is really not safe" I don't agree with that. Yes there have been a zillion religious wars. But that doesn't mean there wouldn't have been another war instead. Religion is just one of the many triggers.
- If the majority of the voters choses a president that wants a cross in each public building is that president forming a theocarcy or just carrying out his democratic duty when he actually does hang the crosses in the buildings?

[Paul Hazelwood]

As in religion not get involved in government matters, and vice versa.  I'm aware that there has been much controversy over some Fundamentalist groups pushing the Government to become more theocratic, and model the government based on their values.  As we have seen in the past, and in the modern times, blending politics with spiritual matters is really not safe.  Most of those politically motivated churches are all traditionalist, who seem more interested in the letter of the law, and their hardcore fire and brimstone supremist ideologies.  

I believe our current laws describe things properly.  The government should not endorse any certain religious organization.   But there is indeed a battle over what that is allowed to mean.

I believe not allowing Gay marriage is a religious restriction that has nothing to do with the freedom of consentual adults and hinders the pursuit of happiness that does not infringe upon anyone elses pursuit.  Whether I religiously condone it or not is irrelevant.

Don't mean to create a hot button with that, but that is a heavy issue that would be religion getting involved in a theocratic way.

But as WW pointed out over all,  it is very complex, because everyone wants it their way.  ;)


To answer your question is that very simply,  YES.  However,  it is not about separation, it is about the wording of our founding documents and defining what that rightly means.  

[WhiteWings]

I believe not allowing Gay marriage is a religious restriction

Not always Paul. I have no problem with a gay marriage or living together. But I have problems with some rights they get from that marriage. Call me old fashion but a a child needs a father and mother. For that reason alone I will always vote against any law that includes right of adoption of children for gay couples.

It's not also easy to know why people vote against something that possibly has religious background.
I think the abortion example I gave of that is  avery good example of that. Christians aren't the only people that care for unborn life. But it 'always' the Christians that are blamed if a pro-abortian law is blocked.

The only problem I have with a theocratic government is that they often are not democratic.

I think it's safe to say most western countries have Christian roots. Those religious roots are now slowly being destroyed. But not because society turns atheist no for religious reasons. Islam.

But as WW pointed out over all,  it is very complex, because everyone wants it their way

But the ways of a religion should be banned...?
I find that a bit odd.
Christianity is an ideology based on the Bible.
But isn't any political ideology based on their set of beliefs? Sounds like a bible.

Voting is based on an opinion. But certain sources of opinions are excluded...

[Universalist Catholic]

But theres quite a bit of stuff I do not agree with regarding Fundamentalism in the Government.  I dont agree with sensoring TV.  Thats the parents job to do, not the Government.  And its not fair to others who have no problems with those shows. 

[jabcat]

In one way I look at this topic, I don't think it should be - nor that that's what the founders intended - not separate, but perhaps also not forced, as in having a State Religion one must bow to.  I believe "separation of church and state" is a distorted statement that isn't an accurate representation of the origional statement(s) and intent.  (Wasn't that phrase actually taken from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote at some point, i.e., not in a law or constitution, etc.?)  

I believe God wanted Israel to be a Theocracy - which would be fine if truly ordained and led by God Almighty.  But, I also believe there can really be some dangers with "religion" in government as well, as in potential abuses (see Iraq, Iran, etc.)

So that's one side of my personal looking at it.  However, especially as things develop in the news these days, and I find myself getting caught up in them, frustrated, aggravated, even angry - wondering what it would mean to pay taxes to a government that would fund abortion and perhaps otherwise murder innocents - I really spend time wondering about some things, included in these five statements -

Respect those in authority.

Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

You are in the world but not of the world.

In the world you will have trouble but take courage for I have conquered the world.

My Kingdom is not of this world.


It seems it's really something to meditate on and pray about - seeking His will.  I'm afraid I don't have all that completely satisfactorily settled yet .  I do get concerned about what the process may be, what may happen in the meantime, and what I'm supposed to be doing relative to it, but I  believe whatever all this looks like and wherever it goes, God's going to fix it.  Reconciliation.

[WhiteWings]

I believe God wanted Israel to be a Theocracy - which would be fine if truly ordained and led by God Almighty.  But, I also believe there can really be some dangers with "religion" in government as well, as in potential abuses (see Iraq, Iran, etc.)

I think it's not because of the religion. I'm sure you can think of some none religious dictators. Rise in power often requires something agreed upon by the masses. Religion. Hating Jews. Terrorism. Cheap oil. Etc

I really spend time wondering about some things, included in these five statements -

Respect those in authority.

Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

You are in the world but not of the world.

In the world you will have trouble but take courage for I have conquered the world.

My Kingdom is not of this world.

James,
I think those rules stay in effect as long as they are not overruled by higher rules.
Assume the state religion becomes Molech worship and you are required to goto a temple of Molech each month and kiss the altar. And your firstborn should be offered to Molech. That's the wish of Ceasar. So Molech worship is recommended by the verses you quoted?

[jabcat]

Yeah, I don't think I should worship Molech.  As a matter of discussion, sometimes I really wonder where's the line there though?  Matter of conscience and being led by the Spirit?  Because there could either be some real [possible] reasons to disobey such as tax $ to fund abortions, or, some that are more so just excuses and not real reasons, such as tax $ to support someone who could work but won't.  Either way, give the $ to "Caesar" and after he takes it then it's his responsibility and accountability?  I don't know if there's really any easy answers to this, tossing it out for further thought.

As far as "good" governments controlled by religion that weren't corrupt, maybe periods in Israel's history when they were truly being obedient to God, and perhaps the U.S. in the VERY earliest years when they were truly being obedient to God?  Before the conquering and massacring began.  :dontknow:  Maybe there are other governments, such as some of the smaller states in the Middle East that aren't necessarily violent or overly corrupt...tough subject...

 

[Molly]

I DID NOT RELINQUISH MY CITIZENSHIP WHEN I BECAME A PASTOR


By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

January 11, 2005

NewsWithViews.com

One of the great fallacies in America today is the assumption that because one is involved in church ministry he is disqualified from being involved in political affairs. This is totally contrary to the values and principles that made this nation great.

If one will read American history, he or she will discover that pastors and religious leaders had as much to do with fighting The War for Independence and bringing into existence this great republic as did the political figures of that day. Furthermore, most of the political figures in Colonial America were Christians.

For example, fifty of the fifty-five men who signed the Declaration of Independence were faithful members of organized Christian churches. They were not atheists, agnostics, or Deists. They were not people that omitted God from their lives. They were not people to whom matters of faith were foreign. America's Founding Fathers were, on the whole, deeply religious. They were committed Christian men who believed in God and His Word.

In fact, we would not have the Bill of Rights today if it was not for a Baptist pastor by the name of John Leland. In addition, Lutheran pastor, John Peter Muhlenberg, Presbyterian pastor, John Witherspoon, and countless other Christian ministers were very influential in America's founding.

Frankly, I am a little weary of pastors and Christians who, under the myth of "separation of church and state," have allowed themselves to be removed from civic involvement. By doing this, they have allowed secularists, humanists, and others to expunge Christian influence from our society.

As I'm sure many readers know, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in any founding document of this country. That phrase was taken from a personal letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut.

The Danbury Baptists were concerned that the new U.S. Constitution might allow governmental intrusion into the private affairs of the church. And, as it was religious persecution that initially precipitated the flight of many Europeans to these shores, they certainly did not intend to go through that again. Therefore, they wrote President Thomas Jefferson inquiring of him what safeguards churches could expect regarding federal encroachments upon their liberties.

Jefferson wrote back a personal letter and said to them, (paraphrase) "You don't have to worry about the federal government intruding into the affairs of the church, because the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights puts a fence around the federal government which prohibits it from interfering with the affairs of the church." This was the spirit of Jefferson's "separation of church and state" letter.

It was not until 1962 and '63 that the United States Supreme Court reversed some 300 years of American history and legal jurisprudence by changing the accepted definition of the First Amendment from that of prohibiting the federal government from interfering with the affairs of the church to prohibiting individuals from exercising their religious freedoms. To do this, they took Jefferson's "separation of church and state" wording completely out of context and totally misapplied it. Since then, the misinterpreted "separation of church and state" has been used to thoroughly purge God and Christianity from America's public life.

Since those egregiously unconstitutional and un-American Supreme Court decisions in 1962 and '63, Christian influence upon civil government has all but disappeared in this country. So great has been this deception that we now hear people say that Christians (especially ministers) should not be involved in politics in any shape, manner, or form.

Yet, the truth is, I did not relinquish my citizenship when I became a pastor. Neither did any other American surrender his or her citizenship when he or she became a Christian. Just the opposite is true.

In order for America to regain its religious liberty, it is mandatory that Christians everywhere get involved in the political affairs of their country. We must stop surrendering our God-given liberties to would-be tyrants! Pastors and other Christian leaders who are actively engaged in the civil affairs of our country serve in the finest tradition of America. Stop apologizing for it!

As Daniel Webster so eloquently said, "I shall know but one country. The ends I aim at shall be my country's, my God's, and Truth's. I was born an American; I live an American; I shall die an American."

Christians are Americans, too; they need to start acting like it!

© 2005 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin210.htm

[firstborn888]

Separate for sure. The Christian right is SO off base about that - one of the reasons I had to leave "church".

The U.S. was not founded upon Christianity but upon principles of human freedom (AKA freedom from oppression - religious or otherwise). That's why Jesus is never mentioned even once in the constitution or in Declaration of independence (which is exactly as the Spirit of Christ would have it).

Smart fellers them founders.  :thumbsup:

(BTW - many early settlers were fleeing Christian states, remember? There's a reason for that! :icon_flower:)

[Molly]

USA/Russia: Radical Atheist Michael Newdow Agrees With A Russian Communist

26 March 2010, 12:40
Russian Communist MP wants to "ban" God again

Moscow, March 26, Interfax – Deputy of the State Duma from the Communist Party Boris Kashin again proposes to change Russian national anthem excluding reference to God from it.

He introduced a correspondent draft to parliament on Thursday. However, the government decided that the MP made a mistake in calculations when he estimated expenses needed to realize his initiative in 120 thousand rubles, the Gazeta paper reports on Friday.

The deputy believes that changing of one word will consolidate citizens as the anthem will become religiously neutral. "To tell the truth, after all that has happened in our country, to claim that God keeps safe our country is only to provoke God," he believes.

Kashin proposes to replace the word "God" with the word "us" in the line "You are unique in the world! You alone are like this, Our dear land kept safe by God!"

"We have kept it safe once, and that led to a lot of bloodshed. History has shown that sometimes we try to keep our land without submitting to a higher moral authority. It's a very dangerous historical philosophy. We will make the same mistake again," Patriarch Kirill said commenting this initiative in November 2009.

http://americancrisis.us/Article.php?ID=69101&;

[Paul Hazelwood]

Just asking, do the people who complain about changing the constitution wish for it to go back to the very original one?  You know the one in which one of the changes would be removed granting the right for women to vote?   

I have actually met one person who sees no problem with that. Any one here agree with him and if so, on what grounds?  He says that women are too irrational to vote because of pms and stuff (he said another S word, lol).

[Paul Hazelwood]

Fair enough WW, since this isn't about gay marriage I am not going to debate the issue, but can I ask what "Old fashioned" is rooted in concerning fathers?

[WhiteWings]

He says that women are too irrational to vote because of pms and stuff (he said another S word, lol).

PMs? They had message boards at that time?  :msealed:
:winkgrin:

Fair enough WW, since this isn't about gay marriage I am not going to debate the issue, but can I ask what "Old fashioned" is rooted in concerning fathers?

Not "fathers" I

[firstborn888]

I will add the the NT gives no indication that earthly governments are to be involved in prayer or enforcing any kind of Christian doctrine/belief at all. Jesus certainly is not recorded viewing the government He was born under in that way. "Render to Caesar that which is  Caesar's and to God that which is God's". A government which supports human and religious freedom WHILE STAYING THE HELL OUT OF OUR PERSONAL BELIEFS is the best possible scenario for people to have. They exist and operate by God's decree and as God's officers whether they know or acknowledge it or not.

Now - oppressive regimes also exist by God's decree but when they violate inalienable human rights they ultimately pay the price and fail miserably. It's a curious system (overall) for sure, but hey - here we are.   :thumbsup:  

[Molly]

Just asking, do the people who complain about changing the constitution wish for it to go back to the very original one?  You know the one in which one of the changes would be removed granting the right for women to vote?

That's kind of a moot question in light of the fact that the current Congress has just denied men the right to vote.  This Congress voted with Obama and against the vocal and majority oppositions of their constituents.

I think we need to return to a representative government first and then we can entertain such silly historical notions.  

[noname]

Should Church and state be separate?

most definitely!

we have seen what the implications are when they are joined at the hip...the church becomes like "the world"

the rulers of this earth is not interested in serving mankind, but only to serve themselves and the interests of their cronies

Jesus tells us that we should be peacemakers, yet the world cannot get enough of war...more war...more blood being spilt

[Paul Hazelwood]

Just asking, do the people who complain about changing the constitution wish for it to go back to the very original one?  You know the one in which one of the changes would be removed granting the right for women to vote?

That's kind of a moot question in light of the fact that the current Congress has just denied men the right to vote.  This Congress voted with Obama and against the vocal and majority oppositions of their constituents.

I think we need to return to a representative government first and then we can entertain such silly historical notions.  

Not my point,  either you like the change made to the constitution concerning voting rights for women, or you don't.

[Molly]

Not my point,  either you like the change made to the constitution concerning voting rights for women, or you don't.

The founders said this--


All men are created equal


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[


Do you think they really meant to say, women and slaves were not equal to men,  women and slaves were not endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights?  Of course not.

In the classical sense, 'all men' refers to all mankind, men, women, black, white.  The greek word is


G444
ἄνθρωπος
anthrōpos
anth'-ro-pos
From G435 and ὤψ ōps (the countenance; from G3700); manfaced, that is, a human being: - certain, man.


Thus, it was always embedded in the Constitution that the equality was for all, the inalienable rights were for all.  And, this is the genius of our founders, because they could see and embrace and make allowance for a thing that was not yet revealed.


1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam,..,

--Gen 5

[Paul Hazelwood]

Not my point,  either you like the change made to the constitution concerning voting rights for women, or you don't.

The founders said this--


All men are created equal


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[


Do you think they really meant to say, women and slaves were not equal to men,  women and slaves were not endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights?  Of course not.

In the classical sense, 'all men' refers to all mankind, men, women, black, white.  The greek word is


G444
ἄνθρωπος
anthrōpos
anth'-ro-pos
From G435 and ὤψ ōps (the countenance; from G3700); manfaced, that is, a human being: - certain, man.


Thus, it was always embedded in the Constitution that the equality was for all, the inalienable rights were for all.  And, this is the genius of our founders, because they could see and embrace and make allowance for a thing that was not yet revealed.


1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam,..,

--Gen 5

Great, then states that have banned  gay marriage based on that equality are violating constitutional rights.   Do you object then to the changes made to the constitution concerning voting rights for women?

[Molly]

Great, then states that have banned  gay marriage based on that equality are violating constitutional rights.   Do you object then to the changes made to the constitution concerning voting rights for women?

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Marriage as a civil union is determined by the states.  If banning gay marriage was violating any Constitutional rights, you would see it in the Supreme Court by now.  States have their own Constitutions, as well, you know.

If you wish to change the U.S. Constitution, this is how to do it.  Be my guest.--




There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):

The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

[Paul Hazelwood]

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Marriage as a civil union is determined by the states.  If banning gay marriage was violating any Constitutional rights, you would see it in the Supreme Court by now.  States have their own Constitutions, as well, you know.

Whether it has gone there by now doesn't indicate anything concerning that.   It's really an easy question to answer.  I am glad there was an amendment to the constitution stating the countries stand on womens voting once and for all.  There should be one for gay marriage too.   And there really is no argument against it that overwhelms a debate on the subject until you decide that you want a christian theocracy in america, than all you have to say is that a certain sects intepretation is what should rule.

Some do, at least admit it if you want one.

[jabcat]

Quick jump-in here.  Your post got me thinking Paul.

God's government is going to look a whole lot different than any of our governments.  It will truly be a Theocracy like no other has ever been or will be.  When God sets up His righteous government over a new heaven and new earth, then I personally truly wouldn't expect there to be any sin, homosexual marriage included – but the following covers a whole lot of territory.  It gets me thinking about my own life (a couple of "oaths" I need to take care of) as well as our current government -

I Timothy 1:9-10   "....being aware of the fact that law isn't laid down for the just person, but for those who are lawless and insubordinate, for those who are...wrongdoers, for those who adulterate pure things and are impure, for those who illtreat their father or mothers, for those who are murderers, for those who have nonmarital sexual intercourse, for those who are homosexuals, ..liars...break their oaths...who do anything else that is in opposition to healthy teaching..."

I Cor. 6:9   "Or aren't you aware that the unjust won't inherit a share of God's Kingdom?  You must stop being led astray;  neither those who are having nonmarital sexual intercourse, nor those who are idol worshipers, nor those who are having extramarital sexual intercourse... nor those who are homosexuals ..thieves ..greedy ..drunkard..nor those who wound with words..."

How should all that influence us now?  I suspect the change needs to come from the inside out, yet again, "law is for the lawless and insubordinate" - and there is no authority that is not established by God....

[jabcat]

P.S. Quote PaulH - "then all you have to say is a certain sects intepretation is what should rule."

And that's a huge part of the problem, huh?   I do know I don't personally want a government that's not truly headed by God Almighty telling me what I should or shouldn't be doing morally - yet they do, regarding stealing, killing, etc. - so it really becomes a complicated issue  :sigh:.  And since it is, and since we sin, and since God's not established his total, righteous government yet, I guess that's why we're waiting and the whole creation's groaning for deliverance.....  

I don't want to complain, so I'll end on a positive note.  God's still good, He still protects and is leading us right where He wants us to go, and He still says this - "in the world you will have trouble, but take courage for I have conquered the world."  :thumbsup:

[Molly]

There should be one for gay marriage too.   And there really is no argument against it that overwhelms a debate on the subject until you decide that you want a christian theocracy in america, than all you have to say is that a certain sects intepretation is what should rule

Again, I don't understand how you equate woman's vote with gay marriage, but I will say that you are not likely to ever get a Constitutional amendment for gay marriage.

As to there being no argument, you should really take a look at what has happened in MA before you make such a  glib statement.  Fathers have been put in jail in MA because they objected to the public school giving their 5 year old a story book of two men marrying complete with two men kissing each other on the lips---and so forth.  Families have moved out of the state. It's not as simple as you seem to think, and all have rights--not just gays.  You don't have to be a Christian to object to gay pride parades marching half naked past your children in the city streets, or to object to your teenager getting books in high school on the finer details of gay sex.  All of that and more comes part and parcel with a state certifying gay marriage.