Separation of Church and State: Good or Bad?

[migurl]

The first ammendment never says the words
“separation of church and state.”
That phrase came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a baptist who had asked him if his ability to practice his faith was based soley on the whim of the governer of the area. Jefferson replied that the first ammendment freedom from established religion claus created a wall of separation between the state and the church. IT means that the government cannot punish or reward a religion (or a person with a belief) simply because of their religious belief. It means that we can practice whatever religion we want (as long as it doesnt violate other laws like human sacrifice) and hte government cant tell us no. THere is nothing wrong with a church speaking out on political matters or an individual politian acting on his personal beliefs. If you don’t want someone in the house or senate enacting laws or whatever based on a certain religious belief, don’t vote for him.

 

[John_Calvin]

I’ve seen a lot of anti-secularism here, so I’m wondering what you folk dislike (or like) about it.

I am for separation, because when Church & State go together, little good comes from it.

Whether I would consider the separation of Church and State good or bad would depend upon your view of such separation.

When the U. S. Constitution was ratified the very first amendment thereto provided that there would be no establishment of religion. Virtually, if not all, of the Founding Fathers were men of faith though they were members of differing churches, and they did not hesitate to express their faith even in government functions. What the establishment clause prohibits is not faith but placing one church in a favored position within the government. I think this is good. Too often various churches have attempted to establish a theocracy of sorts but have failed miserably and brought discredit upon faith in general. Since we are all human, this is to be expected.

I think, however, that the idea of the non-establishment of any church has been carried over into the idea of a separation of government from any expression of faith. It has become increasingly difficult for a person of faith to express his faith when it comes to any matter related to or dealing with the government. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended and has become an excuse for all sorts of degenerate views and practices to find a sort of countenance for these positions. I do not favor the suppression of faith in public life.

 

[gregY]

People should read Fr. Brian Harrison’s articles on this subject that are very helpful, balanced, and informative. On this, as in other things, we need to heed our Holy Father’s teaching that there is no pre-Vatican II or post Vatican-II, but a Hermeneutic of Continuity, as the Catechism reaffirmed (rtforum.org/lt/lt44.html )
One more example from Harrison, see 2nd article down on church-state: rtforum.org/lt/lt9.html
Most American Catholics–even conservative ones–are completely unaware that the Vatican to this day has concordats with these nations such as Colombia, Dominican Republic, Malta recognizing the Catholic Church as the religion of the State.
As Americans it is ingrained in us from birth that church-state relations must be kept separate or else we will end up with inquisitions, laws forcing people to go to Mass (as has been suggested here), etc.
It is Catholic teaching that “societies” have a duty toward Christ and the Truth (see Catechism 2105, 2107, and look up the papal encyclicals it cites from Pius IX, Leo XIII). Whether this is a formal “confessional state” (as in Colombia) or merely an informal, unwritten recognition (as in the Philippines), this is clearly the IDEAL held out by Catholic Social teaching.
We are made by God to be family, to be a people, not individuals divided into numberless sects. So the IDEAL is always to have Christ recognized as King in our own hearts, then in our homes, in our schools, and yes, even in our Senate.
The REALITY in which we live is that we are not there, and so we are forced to rely on arguments from natural law, etc. But the Catholic Church should be able to influence government (eg, Humanae Vitae specifically calls on governments to oppose birth control, which Ireland held into the 90s, I believe) because it is the Truth so it is what is good for humanity.
Without the Church’s influence, you don’t get lack of religion, you only get another kind of religion, be it religious or secularist. As Archbishop Chaput once told a non-believer, “I will try to impose my moral beliefs because if I don’t impose them on you, you’ll impose yours on me” (paraphrasing)

 

[koolmom21]

I’ve seen a lot of anti-secularism here, so I’m wondering what you folk dislike (or like) about it.

I am for separation, because when Church & State go together, little good comes from it.

Many people are confused to what that means. It only means that the government can not start a church! It means nothing more then that.

 

[elts1956]

Many people are confused to what that means. It only means that the government can not start a church! It means nothing more then that.

Also a Church can’t start a National government.

 

[albertjazz]

I’ve seen a lot of anti-secularism here, so I’m wondering what you folk dislike (or like) about it.

I am for separation, because when Church & State go together, little good comes from it.

Give to God the things that are God,and to Ceaser the things that are Ceases

 

[janet_baker76]

I am sorry to be finding this debate so late, as it is a truly important one. First, to those who assert that our country was founded on ‘Judeo-Christian principles,’ perhaps therein lies the problems, for by that must be meant on protestantism in general. Protestantism has within it, as a heresy, a contradiction, one which denies authority, at base, and one which allows the proliferation of sects within the broad umbrella of ‘Christianity.’ This conceptually necessitates the secular state, as a neutral body with sufficient power is necessary to make peace among the sects, and has in fact historically resulted in the secular state. One finds the transition to be almost seamless, and confusing to us. A very helpful and interesting essay is the one called Blasphemy by the Novel prize winner and Catholic author Sigrid Undset in her Men Women and Places, writing of Norway’s contortions of truth in defending spiritualism, when Norway was a theocracy of protestantism, with a State Church (you can find her essays at your local library or at Amazon).

And the secular state in itself inevitably transforms into the atheistic state. The popes of the last century wrote extensively of this, warning us over and over. Space prohibits a review of those encyclicals by Pius XII, Pius XI, Leo XIII, but an excellent summary and application to our present circumstances may be found in They Have Uncrowned Him by Marcel Lefebvre, available at Angelus Press. A very important point to be found there is the complete defection of Vatican II on this issue when there still existed five ‘Catholic confessional states,’ or Catholic States in our way of talking about it. And another is Lefebvre’s point that perhaps the transition to secularism in the world is a done deal and irreversible given present circumstances, but that does not excuse the Church the responsibility of teaching us Catholics how to survive under an aetheistic state, instead of submerging our political identifies therein.

A third point in They Have Uncrowned Him is that tolerance is well within the means of a Catholic Church State alliance, but not the absolute right to exist that resides in our constitution, the elevation to an absolute (which is what the constitutions of Vatican II did) the rights to whatever error of any religious entity, even consisting of one person’s views alone. This is supreme madness and the law of the land. This is what we must fight, however we can. There are religious views which can be tolerated–and those which are dangerous and cannot be. Vatican II and the US and now Europe and most of the world do no longer recognize distinctions, on paper, and spend much time wishing it were not so. It is this elevation to an absolute right that makes both abortion possible (Nancy Pelosi explains her voting record as one driven by religious freedom for all) and things like harvesting the body parts of albinos in Africa, driven by witch doctors whose continued existence and preaching is guaranteed both by all secular states, and by the constitutions of Vatican II. This must be addressed–I am praying that the talks between SSPX and the Vatican unravel the mess we’ve created and free us to take a more independent political position regarding the honoring of religious principles in our own country. What is possible would be different in each state, given its history and present conditions. But presently, if we were offered a vote to make it possible to raise certain religious positions in our own constitution, guess which side the Vatican would be on? (This is the legacy of John Courtney Murray et al.) And the same impetus that causes the Holy Father to praise Obama over and over, and to praise America, when we here on the ground, struggling to contain abortion and homosexual acts and divorce, hear it with tears!

 

[BillP]

Excellent point! Who was it that said “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”

Ironically enough it was Lord Acton, he coined it to express his disagreement with Pope Pius IX’s defining of Papal Infallibility as a Dogma.

In 1870 came the great crisis in Roman Catholicism over Pope Pius IX’s promulgation of the doctrine of papal infallibility. Lord Acton, who was in complete sympathy on this subject with Döllinger, went to Rome in order to throw all his influence against it, but the step he so much dreaded was not to be averted. The Old Catholic separation followed, but Acton did not personally join the seceders, and the authorities prudently refrained from forcing the hands of so competent and influential an English layman. It was in this context that, in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887, Acton made his most famous pronouncement: "I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it. "[3]

 

[Lycorth]

I am sorry to be finding this debate so late, as it is a truly important one. First, to those who assert that our country was founded on ‘Judeo-Christian principles,’ perhaps therein lies the problems, for by that must be meant on protestantism in general. Protestantism has within it, as a heresy, a contradiction, one which denies authority, at base, and one which allows the proliferation of sects within the broad umbrella of ‘Christianity.’ This conceptually necessitates the secular state, as a neutral body with sufficient power is necessary to make peace among the sects, and has in fact historically resulted in the secular state. One finds the transition to be almost seamless, and confusing to us. A very helpful and interesting essay is the one called Blasphemy by the Novel prize winner and Catholic author Sigrid Undset in her Men Women and Places, writing of Norway’s contortions of truth in defending spiritualism, when Norway was a theocracy of protestantism, with a State Church (you can find her essays at your local library or at Amazon).

And the secular state in itself inevitably transforms into the atheistic state. The popes of the last century wrote extensively of this, warning us over and over. Space prohibits a review of those encyclicals by Pius XII, Pius XI, Leo XIII, but an excellent summary and application to our present circumstances may be found in They Have Uncrowned Him by Marcel Lefebvre, available at Angelus Press. A very important point to be found there is the complete defection of Vatican II on this issue when there still existed five ‘Catholic confessional states,’ or Catholic States in our way of talking about it. And another is Lefebvre’s point that perhaps the transition to secularism in the world is a done deal and irreversible given present circumstances, but that does not excuse the Church the responsibility of teaching us Catholics how to survive under an aetheistic state, instead of submerging our political identifies therein.

A third point in They Have Uncrowned Him is that tolerance is well within the means of a Catholic Church State alliance, but not the absolute right to exist that resides in our constitution, the elevation to an absolute (which is what the constitutions of Vatican II did) the rights to whatever error of any religious entity, even consisting of one person’s views alone. This is supreme madness and the law of the land. This is what we must fight, however we can. There are religious views which can be tolerated–and those which are dangerous and cannot be. Vatican II and the US and now Europe and most of the world do no longer recognize distinctions, on paper, and spend much time wishing it were not so. It is this elevation to an absolute right that makes both abortion possible (Nancy Pelosi explains her voting record as one driven by religious freedom for all) and things like harvesting the body parts of albinos in Africa, driven by witch doctors whose continued existence and preaching is guaranteed both by all secular states, and by the constitutions of Vatican II. This must be addressed–I am praying that the talks between SSPX and the Vatican unravel the mess we’ve created and free us to take a more independent political position regarding the honoring of religious principles in our own country. What is possible would be different in each state, given its history and present conditions. But presently, if we were offered a vote to make it possible to raise certain religious positions in our own constitution, guess which side the Vatican would be on? (This is the legacy of John Courtney Murray et al.) And the same impetus that causes the Holy Father to praise Obama over and over, and to praise America, when we here on the ground, struggling to contain abortion and homosexual acts and divorce, hear it with tears!

Excellent post, Janet, and great recommendations! They’re on my wish list

Great food for thought, here. The secular state of America is turning into an atheistic state under which we can be sure that our Faith will find more trouble and trammeling. If only Catholics themselves could see this; the Vatican II spell must be broken!

Ironically enough it was Lord Acton, he coined it to express his disagreement with Pope Pius IX’s defining of Papal Infallibility as a Dogma.

Fine point! Like Janet noted above, secularism has a massive element of Protestant rejection of authority and order at its root. The very individuals Catholic secularists quote with abandon are themselves anti-Catholic and their secularist ideals are founded in opposition to Catholicism.

That ought to give the secularist Catholics here some pause, to say the least.

 

[EnchantedEve]

I stand with all the Popes from Pius XII on back that there ought to be no sepeartion between Church and State. That is, I believe the state should recognize only one true valid religion. All other religions are tolerated, but are not professed as true by the state, as per Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani’s work on this subject. The recognition of the True Faith is expected by God of all, in total and in particular.

To not narrow down both the purpose and spirit of the government is to have chaos like we have now, where one group wishes for this, another that. Some want recognition, others material support. In the end, unless the state is narrow both in its professions and powers, it will most assuredly sprawl out of control in to areas all and sundry, with no limit to its folly. Just as man may only worship one God, so the state must recognize only one Faith, lest it fall from its divisions. A strong state, like a strong person, knows what it believes and what its purpose is. Man cannot serve two (or more!) masters.

 

[janet_baker76]

I wonder somehow if Islam might be the ally of western religious state supporters. I know that’s a terrible thing to even think, in our climate, but I can’t help it. Did you know that Iran led a walk-out that in the end caused the UN to vote down an amendment that would have automatically included abortion in all language mentioning ‘reproductive rights,’ a phrase found throughout UN documents. It would have made abortion legal in all countries by fiat. Iran was the only country that copped to it and walked out, even though the Vatican delegation had been there, silent, Ireland, silent, all the Catholic countries silent. I was so grateful I sent an anonymous email to the Iranian embassy: thank you from the bottom of my heart. Because after they walked out, then our forces came to the fore and the US was forced to withdraw the motion. This happened in the fall of 2009. Austin Ruse reported it.

And sometimes I feel the same way about dress. Recently I was sitting on the bus with a Muslim lady in the whole getup on one side, and an American woman evidently dressed for a class in stripping on my other side, and I felt absolutely grateful to the Muslim lady. I was so embarrassed by the second lady I forgot my book on the bus.

I have a pro-life friend who continually circulates the most extreme anti-Islam material, and I asked her the other day, who else in this country does she think votes pro-life? It is not Muslims flocking to abortion centers, either.

I know all the confusion of who ought to be our allies and who actually are our allies and so forth stems from historical events quite beyond my control, and I accept them as God’s will. Still, when I hear on a travel channel a young Iranian woman, a college student outside her university where she had the insult, according to the reporter, of attending classes, free, with other women, very dignified looking in her discrete makeup and headscarf, saying she hopes Iran and the US become better ‘friends’ so she can enjoy freedom in the way she dresses, I find myself rooting for the regime! 'Cause those girls being interviewed looked well cared for and modest and sweet, still, safe in their terrible horrible ignorant theocracies!

Of course one prefers the Christian freedom of womenfolk, but we are no longer being offered that choice. That is gone. If it were not for their position regarding divorce (it is easy for men to obtain in all the Muslim states I know about, many islamic women’s groups are lobbying hard for the same right rather than fighting it) I would almost rather live under Sharia law than the horror we have concocted right here in the good old USA, the no-fault climate, the aborting, contracepting culture that makes every marriage a slave marriage, as Undset puts it.

If only our Church would repudiate its support of the secular state, we could try to work for a party that really supports marriage, makes divorce very very difficult to obtain, gives women the support of a law against abortion so they could resist the pressure from boyfriends and family (things the Republicans generally approve, except for divorce, everyone now acts as if that fight were lost), and on the other hand pursued economic policies that worked for the broadest distribution of ownership (not income, please notice, a solution neither Dem or Repub but Catholic)–we’d be set! We could work for that end. As it is, we’re faced with a big choice between a kick in the head and a kick in the stomach, offering our kids to die for a state in slow raving dissolution, in fact for a state that is eating our children. Fifty million dead, so far, for a few jacked up numbers on an earnings’ sheet.

We’re paralyzed, as it is. And our beloved country’s position regarding the secular state is an unspoken, almost unconscious, element in Islam’s undying opposition to the ‘western way,’ not the first thing they will say in an interview, but there in the nuts and bolts of their deadly serious gripes against us.

 

[oamanno]

Pope John Paul 2 stated that there is no such thing as separation of church and state, but there is a distinction. It is impossible to separate yourself, (yourselves) from God! Once you do, you begin to become like the world is today. The highest law is God’s law and if you separate yourselves from it then you have begun the decline of the U.S. and the world.
The law of God is Supreme Law and no one can alter it. if we are a “Christian Country” as we think we are, then why would you want to separate yourself from HIM? Makes no sense. If you think God is not involved in our lives, you are mistaken. If you have children are you not involved in their lives–even when they are adults? So too with God. He is directly in our lives whether you are aware of it or not.

 

[TEPO]

We embrace over-consumption… The “good” addiction. Our “new” measure of human worth, and source of profit… Sexual desires, fears, addictions, greed and jealousy have come to replace good morals and fear of God, which generate no profits…

These things would not be possible if the Church stood in the way…

 

[gamewell45]

Taken to its logical end, that means we cannot make any attempt to convert others. That is not what our Lord commanded of us. Respect for abominations is and never has been a commandment of our Lord, a tradition of our Church, or an obligation of ours now.

Hence, religions of the world will at times continue to live in conflict with each other.

Imagine how the church would feel if Islam began a mass conversion effort of Catholics around the world? How would the church deal with it?

 

[TEPO]

Hence, religions of the world will at times continue to live in conflict with each other.

Conflict can be healthy… It helps for improvement. It fixes errors.

Imagine how the church would feel if Islam began a mass conversion effort of Catholics around the world? How would the church deal with it?

We should’nt assume how the Church would “feel” or “deal” with it, although I will point out that it would most certainly not be violent.

 

[TEPO]

No, I’m not offended in the slightest. I’m very tolerant of others who view things different then I do.

I was formally trained in tolerance through the public school system, and have since discovered, that tolerance is nothing more than a vice…

Why should we have tolerance of things that have always caused death and destruction in the past? — Why should we have tolerance of false religons that promote either earth-worship, or war-worship? Why should I be tolerant of a society that advocates bad, sinful things?

 

[EnchantedEve]

I wonder somehow if Islam might be the ally of western religious state supporters. I know that’s a terrible thing to even think, in our climate, but I can’t help it. Did you know that Iran led a walk-out that in the end caused the UN to vote down an amendment that would have automatically included abortion in all language mentioning ‘reproductive rights,’ a phrase found throughout UN documents. It would have made abortion legal in all countries by fiat. Iran was the only country that copped to it and walked out, even though the Vatican delegation had been there, silent, Ireland, silent, all the Catholic countries silent. I was so grateful I sent an anonymous email to the Iranian embassy: thank you from the bottom of my heart. Because after they walked out, then our forces came to the fore and the US was forced to withdraw the motion. This happened in the fall of 2009. Austin Ruse reported it.

And sometimes I feel the same way about dress. Recently I was sitting on the bus with a Muslim lady in the whole getup on one side, and an American woman evidently dressed for a class in stripping on my other side, and I felt absolutely grateful to the Muslim lady. I was so embarrassed by the second lady I forgot my book on the bus.

I have a pro-life friend who continually circulates the most extreme anti-Islam material, and I asked her the other day, who else in this country does she think votes pro-life? It is not Muslims flocking to abortion centers, either.

I know all the confusion of who ought to be our allies and who actually are our allies and so forth stems from historical events quite beyond my control, and I accept them as God’s will. Still, when I hear on a travel channel a young Iranian woman, a college student outside her university where she had the insult, according to the reporter, of attending classes, free, with other women, very dignified looking in her discrete makeup and headscarf, saying she hopes Iran and the US become better ‘friends’ so she can enjoy freedom in the way she dresses, I find myself rooting for the regime! 'Cause those girls being interviewed looked well cared for and modest and sweet, still, safe in their terrible horrible ignorant theocracies!

Of course one prefers the Christian freedom of womenfolk, but we are no longer being offered that choice. That is gone. If it were not for their position regarding divorce (it is easy for men to obtain in all the Muslim states I know about, many islamic women’s groups are lobbying hard for the same right rather than fighting it) I would almost rather live under Sharia law than the horror we have concocted right here in the good old USA, the no-fault climate, the aborting, contracepting culture that makes every marriage a slave marriage, as Undset puts it.

If only our Church would repudiate its support of the secular state, we could try to work for a party that really supports marriage, makes divorce very very difficult to obtain, gives women the support of a law against abortion so they could resist the pressure from boyfriends and family (things the Republicans generally approve, except for divorce, everyone now acts as if that fight were lost), and on the other hand pursued economic policies that worked for the broadest distribution of ownership (not income, please notice, a solution neither Dem or Repub but Catholic)–we’d be set! We could work for that end. As it is, we’re faced with a big choice between a kick in the head and a kick in the stomach, offering our kids to die for a state in slow raving dissolution, in fact for a state that is eating our children. Fifty million dead, so far, for a few jacked up numbers on an earnings’ sheet.

We’re paralyzed, as it is. And our beloved country’s position regarding the secular state is an unspoken, almost unconscious, element in Islam’s undying opposition to the ‘western way,’ not the first thing they will say in an interview, but there in the nuts and bolts of their deadly serious gripes against us.

Janet, I so agree with you. That which is true and eternal for Catholics is true and eternal for all, and certainly, the Holy Ghost is the author of all Truth.

We have picked the wrong allies. Islam and we may be ocean apart theologically, but we agree on those things which are perennial, true and eternal. We cannot claim that with ANY existing secular state. The Muslims are the only people who have been able to embrace the modern world without entirely abandoning their traditions. May we learn by their example!

Thank you for your courageous post!

 

[TEPO]

Janet, I so agree with you. That which is true and eternal for Catholics is true and eternal for all, and certainly, the Holy Ghost is the author of all Truth.

We have picked the wrong allies. Islam and we may be ocean apart theologically, but we agree on those things which are perennial, true and eternal. We cannot claim that with ANY existing secular state. The Muslims are the only people who have been able to embrace the modern world without entirely abandoning their traditions. May we learn by their example!

Thank you for your courageous post!

Sorry to disagree, but it seems like when Muslims migrate here to the States, they keep the headscarves on for about the first generation… The second generation looses the scarves, and the third generation is full-blown Americanized… Thats the devout ones.

IMHO, the Muslims who have their traditions, have actually not embraced the modern world. In fact, Catholics in America were able to maintain their strong traditions (including the head-scarves) up until the time of Vatican ll in the 1960’s, when things in America began to change…

I wish there was a way to keep the traditions while embracing the “modern” world… However, I think the modern world needs to make the change. If we could only get people to stop worrying about material possessions so much, and to start embracing discipline, character, and intelligence, we would be doing the world a favor.

 

[Smart30]

The Bible teaches the complete separation of Church and State. All nations should be 1000000% secular.

 

[dragon]

The Bible teaches the complete separation of Church and State. All nations should be 1000000% secular.

I really like your statement.