Separation of Church and State: Good or Bad?

[kenofken]

So tell me exactly what purpose Seperation of Church and State serves, if violence is inevidable with or without Church involvement ?

The short answer is that separation serves the purpose of keeping us from living in insane prison-like societies like Saudi Arabia and Iran. That alone makes it worth the price of admission for me. Violence and mistrust are not inevitable, nor are they the result of atheism. For all the hype, street violence is much lower now than it was 20 years ago. Everywhere. Our gang problems are not due to a lack of theocracy. They are the result of bad choices young people make each day, generations of people who have internalized our society’s low expectations of them, and the utter lack of any legitimate pathways to success in many inner cities.

The financial meltdown you speak resulted from a culture of predatory greed which was encouraged by many sectors of the Christian community, ie the notion of “prosperity Gospel.” Further, it was enabled by the legislative dismantling of all effective regulation and oversight, done by a political party which saw itself as Christ’s hammer and right hand on Earth. They also engineered a war which has killed probably three-quarters of a million people, most of whom had no prior terrorist aspirations against us. It was viewed by that administration, and by elements within our military, as a war to advance Christianity.

 

[Phil_Stone]

People often say that the Founding Fathers were Christian, so the Country was Christian, and so the govenment was meant to be Christian.

But thats incorrect in many ways. There were literally thousands of “Founding Fathers” that could be quoted, but they were not unanimous (except in opposition to Catholics).
Some ordered the stoning of others. Some formed what eventually became seperate states to live more freely. And many didn’t care about religion at all. To understand what the Constitution was meant to do, one needs to look at the framers of the Constitution, people like Madison and Jefferson. The specific phrase of a wall of seperation of Church and State comes from Jefferson trying to explain what the First Amendment implied.

Many of the people who put the Constitution together, like Washington, were deists, not Christians. Yet they all feared that Catholicism would threaten their experiment in Democracy. Why? Because Catholics were seen as not voting their own will or conscience, but that of their priests, bishops, and the Pope. (Recall that even JFK had to make clear that as President he was not simply going to follow the commands of the Pope. ) npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

The Founding Fathers sought to avoid the religious wars of Europe, and so sought to avoid a situation where the Catholic clergy might command that the laws be based upon Catholicism. Because they lacked the same sort of heirarchy, Protestants were less dangerous. But the Founders held to their principle that because each man should have the free exercise of the religion of his choice, so even Catholicism would be allowed.

The philosophy of the Founding Fathers could not help but be tinged with remnants of some Christian ideas, as most were educated in institutions where religion was included in the curriculem. But much of their philosophy was based on the writings of people such as Hobbes, Locke and Rouseau, whose works were banned by Rome. And much of what might be called Judeo-Christian was not peculiarly Judeo-Christian. Ancient Greece, Rome and much of the Ancient world shared many of the rules that allowed society to function. What set us apart was the goal of freedom and self government, something the world, and the Church had not seen before.

In other words, one can point at a law against murder, and say it has its roots in Christianity, or (more accurately) Judeism, but it both goes back much further, and is also available to the mind as logically necessary for society in the present. What the Framers sought to do was to develop a social ethic or morality to allow people of differing faiths to interact peacefully and productively. And so they understood that if a particular policy could not be justified independently of a particular religious perspective, it would amount to using the government to enforce that religion on the public. And because that conflicts with the idea of people being free to choose their own, and not forced to follow that of another, those sorts of laws could not be allowed.

The consequence of Freedom has been the incredible growth of variations of religion, and of religiosity. In places where the state and church are joined, the opposite generally occured.

To put it all another way, Jesus told us to love our neigbors as ourselves. We all want to be free to practice our own religion, but my neighbors are literally various flavors or Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Atheists. So Jesus would seem to tell me to allow them to follow their own path, even where I disagree with it. To force practices based on my faith upon them would not be to treat them as I would be treated.

So Seperation of Church and State is not only part of the Founding Ideals of the nation, which allowed Catholics to come here and flourish, but it is also demanded by Christanity.

 

[TEPO]

The short answer is that separation serves the purpose of keeping us from living in insane prison-like societies like Saudi Arabia and Iran. That alone makes it worth the price of admission for me. Violence and mistrust are not inevitable, nor are they the result of atheism. For all the hype, street violence is much lower now than it was 20 years ago. Everywhere. Our gang problems are not due to a lack of theocracy. They are the result of bad choices young people make each day, generations of people who have internalized our society’s low expectations of them, and the utter lack of any legitimate pathways to success in many inner cities.

So in you’re opinion, the intitution of moral laws such as: putting an end to pornography and abortion would resemble “prison-like societies” ? I think you are in serious denial of the addictions that Americans are facing. You claim: “bad choices” and “lack of success” as the culprits for American demise, but that’s not what I’m talking about… I’m talking about every class of Americans not just the poor. I see anger between political parties on highest levels… I see anger in big business… I see the world hating America.

The financial meltdown you speak resulted from a culture of predatory greed which was encouraged by many sectors of the Christian community, ie the notion of “prosperity Gospel.”

How can you accuse the Christians promoting “prosperity Gospel” as “predatory”? Would’nt it have actually been the other way around with the brokers as predatory, and even ignorant?

You see -it was GREED that caused problems… Greed is NOT of God! Greed stems from athiesm.

Further, it was enabled by the legislative dismantling of all effective regulation and oversight, done by a political party which saw itself as Christ’s hammer and right hand on Earth. They also engineered a war which has killed probably three-quarters of a million people, most of whom had no prior terrorist aspirations against us. It was viewed by that administration, and by elements within our military, as a war to advance Christianity.

If you choose to blame the Protestants (Christians) then that’s your choice… I belong to the Holy Catholic Church. The Church with Jesus Christ as its Head.

 

[Phil_Stone]

But America has never been 100% secular… I can give you a complete list of laws that were bible-based, not to mention the money we use claims “in God we trust”.

Surely you dont think we should eliminate the few attributes we have left to God, for the sake of the bible… Do you ?

“If you cannot believe your money, who can you believe?”
Dr. Benjamin Franklin Pierce, MAS*H 4077

When items like this come up in Court, they are termed meaningless and ceromonial. I think they do do a diservice to our Founders as most people don’t realize they are of rather recent vintage. Some people think they are traditional, when they are really no older than Jim Crow. Of course many people resisted eliminating that as well.

I’m not even sure what 100% secular means. Jefferson could not get Virginia to protect Freedom of Religion, though Madison eventually succeeded. It has always been the case that some people have been religious, and others have not. But it is also the case that as time has passed we have developed a fuller understanding of the principles involved, and at the same time, we have come to live much more closely together, so that it is easier to notice the differences among us as we are also becoming more diverse. And harder to just leave society for the frontier when others get too pushy. It becomes much more common to need to “make a federal case” out of a conflict. So no one in town ever cared about it till now? That doesn’t make a practice right. And of course there is push back from people who need everyone to agree with them to feel secure in their own beliefs, or who believe that their faith in the truth of their beliefs justifies them in coercing others to adopt their practices, or who just demand the respect of some traditions. So we have to learn to accomodate each other today more than ever.

The holiday of the Winter Solstice is much older than Christianity, and with its Christmas trees, will endure and evolve whether Christians like it or not. Secularists and other non-Christians may celebrate Christmas as a time of commercial success, a time to visit friends and family, or even to celebrate the hope of Peace. That doesn’t preclude religious people from following their own traditions. The only difference modern times has brought is the idea that the religous are not everyone, and so religous celebrations need to be geared to the congreational rather than civic scale. You don’t need a lighted creche in City Hall to celebrate the birth of Christ. All that does is create the false sense that everyone is alike in being Christian. While such a false belief may make some people feel better, it doesn’t help when you are trying to get along with people who in some significant ways are different.

 

[scrapgirl81]

There is an excellent document called, “The Manhattan Declaration.” It is co-authored by Protestant, Evangelical, Orthodox and Catholic Christians. There are three assertions in the document. The last of the three is a piece on the role of Christian faith in government.

If this topic interests you enough to read this thread then if you have not already, I urge you to go read and if you agree, sign this declaration. Here is the link:

manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration

 

[Lycorth]

An important part of this to remember is that our founding fathers rebelled against the king of England and his Church. Not against Rome. They were opposed to the king interferring with the Church. But they didn’t explicitly say vice versa. History is immensely important in this debate. I’m saddened that so many Catholics support separating Church & state. If we claim the Church to be the bride of Christ, how can we call ourselves christians and disregard His bride when it comes to making laws? Under whose authority are we creating laws and enforcing them on people?

I was once a firm believer in the separation, I was blind and unable to see. I have read some history since, and it was not as I had thought. Constantine, St. Ambrose, Pope Leo the great, Pope Gregory the great, and Charles Martel are very important figures to read up on in the powers of Church & state. There was religious toleration in these Christian kingdoms for Jews and Muslims at times, most don’t know this. However, they did not allow devil worshippers. New guys couldn’t start new churches, Jesus already started one and they didn’t think there should be any more. Heresy was punishable (I’ll agree there were times the punishment may have been severe, but these are rare cases) and should it not be? They did not allow abortion. And divorce was rare if ever. Not a perfect society, but please look closely at these issues. Our biggest social problems today wouldn’t exist without the separation. Use your own rational mind to weigh the cost. The Reformation laid a heavy blow to Christianity, it not only separated the Church and State (giving government free rein), it divided the Church. There are currently 40,000 Protestant denominations, and a house divided cannot stand. These are important problems for all of us christians to look at and work together on answers. For the Reformation to count for anything good, Protestants can’t continue starting new churches. Rather it is time to return to Rome and work at reforming the Church, something the reformation originally intended. The Church is made of people and is always in need of reform. But many like me have found it was I that needed reformed.

Some fun facts;
In Pre-Reformation Europe, no king taxed higher than 10%.
Reformer ideologies and philosophies led to the separation of Church & State.
Today Europe is consumed by atheism, abortion, and divorce (these were once Christian governments!).
Germany and Russia have deep Christian history before the separation. After the separation Russia turned commie, Germany turned Nazi. Germany was Luther’s homeland. Why did this happen??? How does one prevent such things?

May God’s grace be a light unto our path.

And modern-day Germany and Russia, though they follow different political paths, are even more secularist than ever. The problem gets worse, because the remedy of Holy Mother Church is still not being administered.

It is relatively easy to trace through history the simple threads that have led to our current state of affairs. Like you mentioned, the Reformation and the subsequent undermining of the Church in politics and culture have led to the gradual degeneration of society. It’s similar to how one can slowly turn up the heat in a pot of crabs and before you know it, they’re being boiled alive - but because it’s gradually done, they do not notice.

The gradual removal of Christianity from society by way of undermining and marginalizing the Church is accomplishing the same thing. Gradually, the cultural heat is being turned up and we’re getting to the point where we’re almost boiling in sin and confusion. But we do not notice because it’s done so slowly, but just to compare the moral and cultural state of Western Civilization now to the pre-Reformation period is enough to shock one into silence when one sees the rich cultural splendor of past ages and the strong moral fabric that underpinned everything compared to the immorality and worthlessness of today.

A Church-guided state is hardly a “prison state” like an Islamic state is. Those who claim this ascribe the impossible quality of equality to religion, claiming that because one religion does things a certain way, all religions would in the same position. Islam and Christianity are vastly different and have historically proven that states guided by these religions will behave differently. The Christian state of the West’s past has proven itself; if we wish to heal our civilization, there is no need to reinvent the wheel nor to fix that which wasn’t broken, merely to adopt what once worked and pick up where we left off.

Time to turn the heat down.

 

[janet_baker76]

It bears repeating that ending the false and harmful separation between Church and State might have different solutions in different countries, depending on their histories. In this country, given that we were born after the rebellion, there might well be some kind of ‘synthetic’ amalgamation of values around the term Christianity that would strengthen marriage, weaken divorce, outlaw abortion and euthanasia, and possibly protect Sunday again; the contentious parts would be around the economy, because Catholicism and protestantism part company there, over unfettered capitalism and the so-called ‘free market.’ (By the way, the liberal economics being pushed by the progressive wing of Catholicism are inaccurately applied to our economy, when they were meant to be applied to a Catholic Confessional State–never to a secular one!)

The Church would have to teach us that this solution would be unstable and temporary (due to the nature of protestantism, that inevitably tends toward secularism, that inevitably tends toward atheism; I am summarizing encyclicals), but it still would be a tactical move that could save lives. And then the Church would have to step up evangelization to build toward a genuine stable Catholic state, the kind in which one’s duties as a citizen, when fulfilled, could lead one to heaven. That kind of state.

It seems impossible and insurmountable. There is no party offering this to my knowledge anywhere in the world (I have informally examined several with so-called distributist principles, but they are indifferent on the matter of abortion, even though some of their platforms say ‘pro-life,’ because they will not support a roll-back of Roe, saying it could ‘cause civil war and abortion is not worth it,’ according to one spokesman, nor are any against the separation of Church and State.). Raising the question is followed by stunned silence. We have, good Catholics all, totally bought into the protestant principle of separation of Church and state and consequent emasculation of the Faith. It was never the Catholic way, until Vatican II capitulated.

I am writing a science fiction novel out of frustration, because actually it’s possible that our best shot is in the economic consequences of colonization–free-standing colonies, not planets. We would be ‘back on the frontier’, with space to return to our roots economically and spiritually. Abortion and contraception and possibly homosexuality would be moot points, since human labor would once again be valuable and human reproduction thus strongly encouraged. (You could read my attempts, and laugh, in ‘Confession’, littered throughout my blog from parts One to Seven at thewhitelilyblog.wordpress.com)

I don’t believe we have a right to give up and pursue ‘love among the ruins,’ as one recent book title teased. I just can’t buy it. I would think Christ would want us to keep trying right up to the day He rises in the East instead of the sun. And a good start is the talks between SSPX and the Vatican. Please pray the rosary that those talks will return the Church to tradition on this as well as other issues! If we don’t return to our roots, we’re the zombies!

 

[RonTheNewJew]

It seems that many people want separation of church and state because they want the right to practice their faith and doctrines as they see fit, for THEIR particular denomination of Judeo-Christianity. They seem less concerned about the rights of many other denominations and organizations of religious expression. This phenomenon is prevalent in various parts of the world.

Some folks say that there is nothing in the Constitution that illucidates or enunciates separation of church and state. However, if one merely examines the First Amendment to the US Constitution, one sees two different but interrelated things:
A. That Congress shall make no law that establishes religion. That means ANY form of religion. The founders of our nation, and their ancestors before them, had been through hundreds of years of religious oppression, and outright murder at the hands of state authorities whose political power stood or fell based on the influence of several overzealous churches whose ideas of control over their flocks were tantamount in their minds to keeping those flocks for Jesus Christ.

They, up until the 15th and 16th centuries, suffered large-scale persecution. They knew how it felt to feel they had no right to practice a different set of doctrines about Christianity or Judaism. Thus, when people of many faiths formed the basis of today’s modern state, they defined “state” as a government by and for ALL people. They knew of the many ideas of worship, and the need to protect it so that people would feel free to educate themselves and work hard, unhindered by a state that operated at the demand of a large church whose members could be influenced to demand that their legislators form laws that oppress religious minorities.

We all need to learn to treat each other in a Constitutional way. Not establishing any form of religion or religious practices, symbols, days and ways, etc. is tantamount to protecting the economic strength of our country. But, we need to learn to practice the morality and “put-the-other-guy-first” that our many faiths actually ask of us. Not enough presssure in put on members by ministers, priests, rabbis’ and imams to follow the simple moral teachings of their own denominations.

God bless you

 

[Schn]

It seems that many people want separation of church and state because they want the right to practice their faith and doctrines as they see fit, for THEIR particular denomination of Judeo-Christianity. They seem less concerned about the rights of many other denominations and organizations of religious expression. This phenomenon is prevalent in various parts of the world.

Some folks say that there is nothing in the Constitution that illucidates or enunciates separation of church and state. However, if one merely examines the First Amendment to the US Constitution, one sees two different but interrelated things:
A. That Congress shall make no law that establishes religion. That means ANY form of religion. The founders of our nation, and their ancestors before them, had been through hundreds of years of religious oppression, and outright murder at the hands of state authorities whose political power stood or fell based on the influence of several overzealous churches whose ideas of control over their flocks were tantamount in their minds to keeping those flocks for Jesus Christ.

They, up until the 15th and 16th centuries, suffered large-scale persecution. They knew how it felt to feel they had no right to practice a different set of doctrines about Christianity or Judaism. Thus, when people of many faiths formed the basis of today’s modern state, they defined “state” as a government by and for ALL people. They knew of the many ideas of worship, and the need to protect it so that people would feel free to educate themselves and work hard, unhindered by a state that operated at the demand of a large church whose members could be influenced to demand that their legislators form laws that oppress religious minorities.

We all need to learn to treat each other in a Constitutional way. Not establishing any form of religion or religious practices, symbols, days and ways, etc. is tantamount to protecting the economic strength of our country. But, we need to learn to practice the morality and “put-the-other-guy-first” that our many faiths actually ask of us. Not enough presssure in put on members by ministers, priests, rabbis’ and imams to follow the simple moral teachings of their own denominations.

God bless you

I agree. Everything looks different when you’re in the majority.

 

[gamewell45]

It seems that many people want separation of church and state because they want the right to practice their faith and doctrines as they see fit, for THEIR particular denomination of Judeo-Christianity. They seem less concerned about the rights of many other denominations and organizations of religious expression. This phenomenon is prevalent in various parts of the world.

Some folks say that there is nothing in the Constitution that illucidates or enunciates separation of church and state. However, if one merely examines the First Amendment to the US Constitution, one sees two different but interrelated things:
A. That Congress shall make no law that establishes religion. That means ANY form of religion. The founders of our nation, and their ancestors before them, had been through hundreds of years of religious oppression, and outright murder at the hands of state authorities whose political power stood or fell based on the influence of several overzealous churches whose ideas of control over their flocks were tantamount in their minds to keeping those flocks for Jesus Christ.

They, up until the 15th and 16th centuries, suffered large-scale persecution. They knew how it felt to feel they had no right to practice a different set of doctrines about Christianity or Judaism. Thus, when people of many faiths formed the basis of today’s modern state, they defined “state” as a government by and for ALL people. They knew of the many ideas of worship, and the need to protect it so that people would feel free to educate themselves and work hard, unhindered by a state that operated at the demand of a large church whose members could be influenced to demand that their legislators form laws that oppress religious minorities.

We all need to learn to treat each other in a Constitutional way. Not establishing any form of religion or religious practices, symbols, days and ways, etc. is tantamount to protecting the economic strength of our country. But, we need to learn to practice the morality and “put-the-other-guy-first” that our many faiths actually ask of us. Not enough presssure in put on members by ministers, priests, rabbis’ and imams to follow the simple moral teachings of their own denominations.

God bless you

Well said.

 

[elts1956]

There is an excellent document called, “The Manhattan Declaration.” It is co-authored by Protestant, Evangelical, Orthodox and Catholic Christians. There are three assertions in the document. The last of the three is a piece on the role of Christian faith in government.

If this topic interests you enough to read this thread then if you have not already, I urge you to go read and if you agree, sign this declaration. Here is the link:

manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration

Hi, I have already signed it and have encouraged as many people as possible to do so also.

 

[janet_baker76]

We all need to learn to treat each other in a Constitutional way. Not establishing any form of religion or religious practices, symbols, days and ways, etc. is tantamount to protecting the economic strength of our country. But, we need to learn to practice the morality and “put-the-other-guy-first” that our many faiths actually ask of us. Not enough presssure in put on members by ministers, priests, rabbis’ and imams to follow the simple moral teachings of their own denominations.

God bless you

This is a thoughtful position, the very one I used to have. But here’s the problem: put short, it is very difficult to practice one’s faith when surrounded by an uproar of different, and even contradictory, positions and their resultant practices. This is due to human nature and our susceptibility to pressure, or put as my Faith does, due to original sin. The specifics of practice one’s faith revolve around actual practices: not lying no matter what, sexual fidelity (but that’s arguable in some people’s faiths–and I guess perhaps lying, for that matter). These practices usually go against human nature. It is not easy to tell the truth. Consider telling the truth when you might lose your life for it. And the rub is, when there are competing versions of ‘right behavior,’ it is too easy to say, the hell with it, ‘I’ll do as I feel like’ and dress it up with pretty words. By the time everyone else climbs out of the pretty words, it’ll be a done deal, hardwired like train track guage.

Many writers take marriage as the practice. Sigrid Undset, whom I’ve already mentioned above, did. To paraphrase her essay Letter to a Parish Priest, it takes everything a society has to delicately maintain a version of marriage that is life-long and faithful. And even when society is successful in achieving coherence on defining what life-long and faithful means, and is successful in teaching that to every citizen, then it still only gets a certain percent compliance. It only gets a few good marriages. The rest of us sin in all our various, inglorious ways.

But the thing is, it only needs a few good marriages. Somehow that backs up the not-lying and the not-stealing and very importantly, the honoring of contracts and rights to ownership–of land, of goods. A right which I wish to see protected and one which you must agree is somewhat shaky in present times, with everyone observing closely each other’s salaries and bonuses and how much it costs to cure your particular cancer. And in a society where forces are combining to have us own less and less, be more and more slaves. (One of Undset’s powerful points is that our present acceptable form of marriage, which is rather like a dog license, is really the form allowed to slaves, let us say extremely elastic, back in the day and now again in our new, even more horrible slavery. The Matrix was understated, truly. Karl Marx understated it.)

It is early, five forty, but I am on my way to an abortion clinic, as I do every Saturday, to try to save a life in the midst of our secular’s society’s most naked expression of what happens when we all “just get along.” Somebody’s religion says you can kill any human being you can barely see. Except when you look. Except in an ultra-sound. Oh we humans need a society where the state and the faith are in sync, and maybe, maybe then, a few lives can be saved. As all the previous popes taught, there is no compromise with Truth, Christ is the Way. And this coherence is just barely enough to get the job done.

I do appreciate your position, and it was well put, but it is wrong. It doesn’t work. It is more and more naked oppression and chaos, here in the US.

 

[Lycorth]

Indeed. We’ve tried the “melting pot” method and it has failed. It is as impossible to implement as, for example, Marxist economics. Forcing everyone to forsake the entirety of their religious beliefs in order to promote a few feel-good concepts that may or may not be shared in common isn’t practical.

The best way for the West is the way of the Catholic Confessional state, the way of centuries of European Christian government before the chaos of the Reformation sowed the seeds that gave us secularism and chaos.

 

[DorianGregorian]

The assumption is that false religions would be able to influence the government. Remember, Catholicism is the faith established by God himself. Even Judaism today is not the way it was in the Torah, no Priests, no Temple, no Davidic hierarchy.

Bl. Pius IX Syllabus of Errors #55 - The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. - Condemned

Bl. Pius IX Syllabus of Errors #77 - In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. - Condemned

Separation of Church and State is a modernist invention influenced by masonic ideas. Read Ottaviani’s Duties of a Catholic State.

 

[Lycorth]

Duties of the Catholic State - excellent suggestion

We have a duty to see that the state insures moral principles and inspires social action with and through its laws. We cannot fulfill the Great Commission without the conversion of our entire way of life, including government.

 

[sedonaman]

Personally I think religion and the government should be separate because the Church shouldn’t be able to dictate outside of their specific religious community, and impose laws influenced by religion on non-religious people

If this is not a fallacy, it should be. The anti-slavery movement in the U.S. was led primarily by the various Christian denominations. The civil rights movement likewise.

In any form of government [and democracy is no exception], someone’s preferences will prevail. That’s why we have elections – to determine whose. Don’t you vote for candidate “A”, whose views you favor, in lieu of “B” so your views, of whatever character, will be “forced” on society?

Another factor in your statement implies that Christians should “park” their religion outside the doors of the voting place. But if religious views cannot be “forced” on society, what about secular views with which a majority disagree? In such a case, aren’t you being forced to live under laws you find repugnant? What the person is really saying, in effect, when he says Christians should “park” their religion outside the doors of the voting place is that as a Christian, you have no right to vote. Note that under the doctrine of some are more equal than others [AKA, “political correctness”] Muslims as Muslims do.

 

[koolmom21]

Personally I think religion and the government should be separate because the Church shouldn’t be able to dictate outside of their specific religious community, and impose laws influenced by religion on non-religious people

The separation of church and state just means that the state can not make a religion.It is not the separation from church and state.

 

[Schn]

Indeed. We’ve tried the “melting pot” method and it has failed.

Failed? We are talking about the global super power right?

 

[RonTheNewJew]

What the phrase, “separation of church and state” means is that Congress, and because of the, I think it is the 22nd Amendment (the one that says that the rights guaranteed under the First, Second, and several other Amendments to the Constitution can never be amended or abrogated, the entire nation, can never pass laws that establish a religious practice of any sort.

Germany is now a good case in point. Lutherans and Catholics, under pressure from their hierarchical leaderships, who directly wanted and asked their members to vote for passage of legislation requiring stores and shops to all be closed on Sunday because, as the legislation passed clearly stated, “it is traditionally recognized as a Sabbath,” the obvious reference to religion. The German constitution, apparently, … allows for such quazi-religious legislation. This forces minority religions, Jewish, Islamic, and an assortment of Christian denominations to close stores not only on their Sabbath (in the Jewish case, the one given in the everlasting covenant at Mt. Sinai, the one that God never ordered any change to), but on one that men established a long time after Christ’s ascension and Pentecost (Shavuot, in Hebrew).

That such actions will do anything other than shove what was done above board on Sunday to go underground, is obvious. A bit like prohibition was in the United States for ten years, from 1920, to 1930 when it was repealed. It only took ten years for organized crime to do underground what had been done in licensed, recognized stores, above-ground.

I think it is time that organized religious entities did some growing up. This means doing as, for example Catholic leaders and some Protestant groups did in the 1960’s. They joined, publicly, civil rights and peace groups who peacefully demonstrated for issues of social and economic justice, sang out along with some really great musicians like Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Peter, Paul and Mary and others at huge rallies. I went to a few ot them, myself. A lot of education about social action was given to people who then went back home to their own communiities and taught locals that their voices could be heard and changes could be legislated that enhanced their own economic and educational functions. It was, to say the least, a truly exciting time.

It was a dangerous time for civil rights and some political leaders. Within a four and a half year time in the 1960’s we lost three of our best to the bullets of US Government/CIA/mob-hired assassination squads. But, good legislation was passed and signed into law by politicians, one of whom we now know was involved directly in the plot that killed President Kennedy. Lyndon B. Johnson. A few others are still alive today. Check out the name in a search engine, “James E. Files,” a prisoner at Stateville Prison, Joliet, Illinois, at 68 years old.

Kennedy was a great president. Barely elected, only three years later, his poll numbers stood at roughly 71% just one week before his death at the hands of his political enemies, once they had a low-level double-agent (FBI and CIA) set up with a job along the route, and told he was there to “abort” the assassination. His job was an impossible one. They knew that all along. They played him along as well. Sad story, but a documented one.

Peace, and an American currency were Kennedy’s aims. But, the enemy within won out on Friday, November 22, 1963. Corporatism did then as it does today. It told Washington what to do and when. It has been there ever since. They cannot be defeated with legislation. They own the legislative process. I think that, if the churches were to begin doing what they did in the 1960’s, educating their memberships about the greed that corrupted our political process, instead of attempting to legislate thinly vailed religious practices, people would once again begin to think that their political democracy could be saved, and their freedoms enhanced. Peaceful demonstrations, backed by organized religion.

PS. Attendance at religious services went up quite well in the 1960’s. Religious ceremonies mixed with Biblical excerpts and passages, gave the people the nerve to stand up to big government that was bscked by corporate donations. It is time for true public bravery once again. That is where real change comes from.

 

[mjakemccoy]

Germany is now a good case in point. QUOTE]

I think Germany is extremely important in this debate, but we have to dig to the roots of German christianity and to the roots of the modern idea of a separation of church and state. The Apostles made it into Germany, and several other evangelizers in the early centuries with some success. St. Boniface (the evangelizer of Germany) was thrown out of Germany by a duke in the 8th century. Charles “the hammer” Martel slough the duke, allowing Boniface to evangelize Germany. Martel is credited with establishing the framework for the feudal system, by giving land rights to soldiers, in effect creating the first “middle class”. He also defeated the Moors at the Battle of Tours, preserving Christianity from utter annihilation according to most historians. He also established a balance of powers between the Church and state that would last until the Reformation. The feudal system dominated Europe until the Reformation, when capitalism began to take over during the beginning of the separation of Church and state as we know today, though it wasn’t truly tried in it’s full theory until America established it 1776.

Germany has a rich and deep Christian history, even Martin Luther was from there. Could someone please explain to me how this country with deep Christian roots could decay into the birthplace of Nazism? I’ll bluntly say it was precisely due to the separation of Church and state, that the state was unchecked and allowed to run free into oppression. I’ve never been to a jewish country, but I think I could greatly respect their laws. Certainly I would dream and hope of a Christian country to live in, but I could far more respect it to a society that openly embraces atheism, and relativism and openly allows devil worship and witchcraft. I have been to Islamic countries and was humbled by my visit. They don’t have the separation we have in the west. Justice lives there, so you don’t break the law. They have no Fifth Amendment, and a rational mind has to ask why we would have one if we wanted to find the truth? I don’t believe in their religion, but as a Christian I can respect their form of government and the respect they have for their religion to give it a place in society, not brush it into a corner where it can only be talked about in church buildings on a Sunday before the appex of the afternoon football game.

Russia is another prime example, it used to be ruled by Christian Czars with rich Christian history. We’ve all heard of their attrocities to liberty, but the numbers are quite low. They were not perfect I admit. But what do we hear of the 30+ million Stalin slaughtered? These are 2 modern examples where the people rebelled and gained control, seperating the Church, and liberating the state. As a Jewish brother you should be quite familiar with accounts of the Jewish people rebelling against God and his prophets throughout the OT. His great servant David would not touch Saul, as bad as he was, he was still annointed by God. Out of reverence to the Lord, David would not harm a hair on his head.

One more philosophical point; what Christian in their right mind would not make great sacrifices to end abortion, abolish evolution in public schools, curb permescuity, homosexuality and divorce? If we had a Christian government these would not be in debate my brothers and sisters, it is that simple! We could still argue politics mind you, we’d still argue taxes, roads, state & local rights; but these grave offenses would not be in debate. Is that not enough to make great sacrifices for. I urge us all to work at unity in the Church so we can reestablish Christian government. We have learned much from the Reformation and new forms of government could be tried, and we should always strive for healthy reform in both church and government. But the division we Christians are currently living in is bearing sour fruit. If any stated evidence is in contrast to proper history or logic please correct me, but if not, please bear mind to this evidence and work towards unity this very day. Praise be Jesus Christ.