G
GKC
Guest
Indeed.
- Status
T
tony12356
Guest
Just a quick wiki search will show you that the separation of church and state dates back to the 1800’s and the constitution does support the idea of separation of church and state.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
T
tgGodsway
Guest
God did not create us to be robots who blindly fall in line, but did call us to become disciples of Jesus Christ. This is one sure calling I can trust. Since all people are created equal, all people can equally search and find the truth found in His holy word. Once we find that truth (from the narratives of scripture) it becomes a root in our hearts going down deep to an underground current given to us at conversion. This same root and tree has now become a Catholic tree for all to enjoy.
L
lanman87
Guest
You are walking a fine line on this one. The church and state for many years and in many instances had a relationship where the church supported and even appointed secular rulers and secular rulers upheld the dictates of the church. In a sense they co-ruled and used each other to strengthen and hold their power. To be sure there was a lot of meddling in the affairs of the church by secular rulers, starting with Constantine. And there was a lot of meddling in the secular by the church including the crowning of Emperors and Kings. It was a tumultuous relationship at times, however they both used the relationship to maintain power.
It is all well and good to say that the church didn’t have the authority to imprison and kill those who were considered heretics but the fact remains that the secular rulers did those things at the behest of the church. In many cases the “threat to the state” was the fact that they were disobeying the Catholic church.
It is also true that after the reformation that Protestant state religions were formed. As a result Catholics were persecuted under Protestant Kings and rulers in similar ways Protestant were persecuted under Catholic Kings and rulers. The melding of church and state was bad for everyone whose belief wasn’t the same as the secular rulers.
That is one reason why the U.S. Constitution is such a landmark document. For the first time the freedom to worship and believe according to their conscious was given to all. The establishment clause meant the State (in theory) wouldn’t uphold the interest of the church and the Church could only appoint rulers by the votes of the church membership, which is only one voice among many and not always a unanimous voice.
So I will stand by my comment about not being a Catholic being illegal. From the time of Constantine to the Reformation the State decided that Catholicism was the only viable expression of Christianity. This was fully supported and promoted by the Roman Catholic Church and the church and state worked together to remove “heretics”.
G
GKC
Guest
Pretty good summary, all in all. The intertwining of church and state, in my particular period of interest, the Henrician portion of the Tudor period, gets a lot of mention, when I post on certain matters.
Y
YADA
Guest
Not in the way you suggest …the states were allowed to determine there interactions with religion …the 1947 USSC Decision changed that …
Hugo Black as a Senator attempted to amend the Constitution to add the Separation of church and state …he would not have needed to do if it existed already. What he failed to do as a Senator he accomplished through judicial activism.
Hugo Black was an anti Catholic bigot and a racist who was antagonistic against religion in general, Christians in general and Catholics in particular. Also a member of the KKK. Before his Senate run his claim to fame was getting a murderer off …the murder of a priest celebrating Mass …you can’t believe the eye witness testimony of Catholics
…and why was the priest murdered …he married a Puerto Rican man to a Caucasian woman …her father shot the priest.The last state church to be disestablished was Massachusetts 1830s and South Carolina circa 1790 or there about.
Some states only allowed Protestants to hold office even into the 1800s …so you had freedom to worship as you wanted unless you wanted to hold public office …that is not the Wall of separation that has ended Baccalaureate services at graduations and the singing of Christmas carols, Nativity Scenes and Christmas trees instead of holiday trees
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Well said and I concur fully.
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
Actually, I stand firm on the solid ground of the Constitution. The establishment clause had nothing to do with the State upholding the interest of a church, it was about the establishment of a National Church. This is absolutely clear from the context and the experience of the founding fathers. There is no other interpretation possible unless we are to insert our 21st understandings upon the 18th century, which we cannot do legitimately.
Not until 1947 was the bastardization of the Constitution that lead to the lies of today on this subject.
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
Well said and accurate to the actual history (instead of mere opinions).Not in the way you suggest …the states were allowed to determine there interactions with religion …the 1947 USSC Decision changed that …
Hugo Black as a Senator attempted to amend the Constitution to add the Separation of church and state …he would not have needed to do if it existed already. What he failed to do as a Senator he accomplished through judicial activism.
Hugo Black was an anti Catholic bigot and a racist who was antagonistic against religion in general, Christians in general and Catholics in particular. Also a member of the KKK. Before his Senate run his claim to fame was getting a murderer off …the murder of a priest celebrating Mass …you can’t believe the eye witness testimony of Catholics
The last state church to be disestablished was Massachusetts 1830s and South Carolina circa 1790 or there about.
Some states only allowed Protestants to hold office even into the 1800s …so you had freedom to worship as you wanted unless you wanted to hold public office …that is not the Wall of separation that has ended Baccalaureate services at graduations and the singing of Christmas carols, Nativity Scenes and Christmas trees instead of holiday trees
G
GKC
Guest
I agree with your interpretation. But I don’t see that the quoted sentence is not susceptible of the same reading.
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
It’s not fitting in the sense of an eye-for-an-eye. I’ll let others advocate for that. No, it’s fitting in that it’s poetic justice (gruesome and horrible as it may be). He was not exempt from Jesus’ call to do unto others as he would want them to do unto him. His perfect society allowed no wavering as to thought or act. For some time he was a vital (and extremely willing) arm in the state’s call to give no quarter to religious dissenters. It was only when the state redefined what a dissenter was did he (perhaps) understand how it felt to be on the other side holding a differing opinion.
I certainly do not advocate cruelty or violence; but he was a man who, even as a product of his times, worked without compassion or mercy, His fate was a sharp mirror of his deeds.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Your judgement coming from afar does no justice to a time and place that is never our own.
Sir Thomas More reluctantly took the position of Chancellor to the King. Posters have correctly corrected your post, so I will refrain from repeating what has already been posted.
Sir Thomas More exercised his authority under the orders of his secular King. In short you place blame where there is none to blame, when it comes to the final authority of capital punishment in this period.
Saint Thomas More refused to acknowledge and objected to his secular King to possess or usurp Church authority (Keys) from the Church Jesus Christ founded and gave the (authority) Keys to Kingdom of heaven Peter.
You see, Saint Thomas More only had one eternal King of Kings who is Jesus Christ and he recognized his eternal King’s authority on earth in St. Peter, and Peter’s apostolic successor, who presides on the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ on earth.
When Saint Thomas More was met with a decision to chose a secular King over his eternal King. Saint Thomas More chose eternal life in Jesus Christ.
You are mistaken to think, that St. Thomas More objected to his secular King, because his secular King came against his personal Catholic faith.
No, Saint Thomas More made a personal Life or death decision, to never deny Jesus Christ and His Vicar on earth the Pope. Which his secular King was forcing Saint Thomas More to confess.
To the post that compared St. Thomas More or Christian Martyrs to the way of Muslim suicide bombers. St. Thomas More paid his executioner before being beheaded, St. Thomas More forgave his executioner. This poster should learn more about true Catholic Martyrs and Saints before jumping to false conclusions or comparisons.
Peace be with you
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I rarely disagree with GKC, but I have to disagree with GKC. I find your post lacking and misrepresenting in historical Truth and misinformed of the history you presented.
Please allow me to clarify a short summary for my findings. When you say “Church” you are never clear in defining Church.
Simply, to all Catholics and the scriptures reveal the Church to be the body of Christ. Within in this body of Christ, you appear to be addressing historical circumstances involving members of the Church militant or members of the body of Christ on earth. These members include both Catholic Kings and Catholic clergy, these Catholic members in all of your presented history, individually are never the WHOLE CHURCH, as you misrepresented in your post.
Where I find your post lacking. You neglected the historical facts. When your posted history took place, in this historical background you will find a Saint, a Martyr who are also members of the same Church = body of Christ, who are keeping the faith through your recorded histories.
When the gates of hell (your posted history) come against Peter and the flock, Jesus commissioned him to tend and feed. God always saves a remnant for His flock, so that the gates of hell will never prevail.
What your post does is only reveal the body of Christ has human members who are subject to change and to sin, and I am exposing to you here, that the body of Christ also possess members who are Saints living in the same history you presented, remaining unchanged walking in profound Love of enemy and God, standing on their Rock of faith. Thus the Catholic Church we speak about in history remains today unchanged these past 2000 years.
Peace be with you
G
GKC
Guest
Your opening lines are very kind.
I doubt Ianman was saying that it was the Church as the Body of Christ that was, in toto, doing anything. It was the functioning of the institutional Church, in its interactions with the secular side of society, that was intertwined in a symbiotic relationship, sometimes in conflict, sometimes hand in hand, to govern and rule that society. And that is not always, of necessity, something to be regretted. But the relationship was something that should be recognized. It was how Western society functioned, at a point in time. It changed, with time.
B
BroIgnatius
Guest
The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret law according to the Constitution as-is, as it is written and intended by the founding fathers, not to the philosophical bias of the judges (YADA has already outlined what happened there), and not to an “activist” court, which by definition violates the Court’s constitutional mandate.
Under the criteria of how the Constitution is suppose to be interpreted, strict scrutiny and original intent are terms, the establishment clause can be nothing but talking about a National Church (which has nothing to do with the current understanding). It cannot be read in any other way, with any other rendering, without doing violence to the Constitution and how it is to be interpreted and to the truth.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
No, because suppressing speech doesn’t work. If you have to use the power of the state to get your message across, it’s the ultimate concession that your ideas cannot stand on their own merit.
Besides, state control of speech and other things back-fires in the worst ways possible. That’s why in the West there’s such elaborate rhetorical (now bordering on oppression and violence in some cases)
The fact that some people act irresponsible is something that no state, no matter how powerful it is (or really just things it is in its own little bubble) can save everyone.
And beware of those who say “well, I’m for free speech…BUT…”
G
GKC
Guest
Yes, I agree with your points on interpretation. I disagree that what Ianman wrote is necessarily saying something different.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
More was, of course, a brilliant humanist intellectual, a distinguished public servant, a deeply committed Christian, and a very courageous man. He stands head, shoulders and more or less everything else above the run-of-the-mill deluded Muslim suicide bomber. I do not in any way equate the two. Certainly his persecution of dissenters “reflected the limits of the culture of his time” (as Pope St John Paul II said) and has to be judged in that context. But it can’t simply be swept away as something that doesn’t matter because he was a martyr, any more than the teenage suicide bomber’s murders don’t matter because he dies for his faith. What we do does matter, however we die.
Incidentally, may I congratulate you on your use of the anonymous third person when referring to me? It adds an agreeable additional loftiness to your splendid de haut en bas style.
May peace be with you too.
L
lanman87
Guest
How about I re-phrase it this way.
“From the time of Constantine to the Reformation certain Kings, rulers, and officials worked with some representatives of the church including Popes, Cardinals and Bishops to enforce the degrees of the church.”
I agree that there have always been men and women of faith and character in the church. Particularly in the Monastic societies. However, recorded history shows the policy of the church(those Kings and Church leadership) was to stamp out anyone it considered to be a heretic by any means possible. This included forced recantation, imprisonment and even death. This also included military action by both secular and papal forces against heretical groups.
When Protestant Kings came to power they did the same thing to Catholics, often with the support and urging of the Protestant church leadership. Society stills feels the sting of the religious oppression (from both sides) and violence of that era. Sadly, the violence was more about the authority of the kings and power of the state than it was about faith in Christ. Religion was the excuse kings and queens used to rally their forces against other kings and queens.
We also had religious intolerance in the Colonies prior to the Revolutionary war. Those Puritans were actually nasty to other religions. In particular to Quakers and Catholics. Maryland went back and forth on the treatment of Catholics until the Revolutionary war.
It was that backdrop that led the Founding Fathers to include the establishment clause and free exercise clause in the Bill of Rights. They didn’t want the religious wars and persecutions that had engulfed Europe to continue in the new nation. While we have still had our share of religious intolerance at local levels we have managed, to this point, to stay away from the protracted hatred and violence between Catholics and Protestants such as what transpired in Ireland.
L
lanman87
Guest
I agree that the founding fathers did not mean to separate church from the state as it pertains to religious displays and traditions. They weren’t worried about a town council opening a meeting in prayer or a Christmas Tree on the courthouse lawn. They were trying to create a society were religion was not an excuse for war and persecution. In the culture of the time it was not a far fetched scenario that one state could become Protestant and another Catholic and those states go to war over religion.
What is in the process of happening in our 21st century society is that Secular Humanism is taking hold and as a result many want freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion. They want all religious symbols and traditions removed from society. They also want, in some cases, to take away personal liberty on moral issues so that the laws compel us (Christians) to go against our beliefs or face persecution. Sadly, thanks to the education and court systems we can expect this trend to continue.
- Status