Separation Of Church and State

[Brad]

AnAtheist:

Of course not. But forcing others to pray, even by peer pressure ony, does.

Church/state separation is a blessing for religious people too. What happens, if the state endorses the wrong church? Consider a US, where fundamentalist protestantism regarding the RCC as a Satanic institution became state religion. You wouldn’t want that, would you? Or some freaked-out Taliban running the country.

Nobody has ever been forced to pray in a public school to my knowledge. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Peer pressure has never forced anyone to do anything they decided not to do.

I don’t want the Taliban running the country. I want the country to acknowledge Christian values because they are good for the country and they allow for religious freedom.

 

[ShockleyHaynes]

Brad:

I want the country to acknowledge Christian values because they are good for the country and they allow for religious freedom.

I crossed my eyes, re-read this, and it looked just the same!

 

[Brad]

Donna P:

Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s - give to God what is God’s.

That said, we still need the moral teachings of our Lord to guide our actions. Christ does not want our money - he wants our souls. Yet if we forget God in the governing of our country - then Satan will have our souls.

That is correct. What people have trouble understanding is that in the United States, WE ARE CEASAR. We are “We the People”. We decide how the country goes by what we want and ask for.

As for me, I want a country influenced by Christian values. They are fair, non-discriminatory, and beneficial. They are progressive. They have no equal in the history of ideas. They have the highest success rate in creating and running schools, hospitals, community centers, and families.

 

[Brad]

RikasAngel:

Hello All,

We need to look at the Constitution very carefully:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Congress, i.e. the Government, cannot Establish a religion of any kind. This was included in the Constitution inorder to avoid the British problem of the Church of England. The Pilgrims left Englad specifically to get away from the Church of His Imperial Majesty. Prior to the Revolution, several of the Colonies had an Official Religion. The Episcopal Church was the most Common. In several Colonies the Catholic church was outlawed. “:The Establishment Clause” forbid government intrusion on Matters of Faith.

“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

This “Free Excercise Clause” allowed Faith to be a matter of personal choice. No one had to belong to or pay tithes to a State Religion. This gave Catholics, Jews, and others the right to live and worship without duress.

The main question is, can the government favor any religion or denomination over another. The Fact is, no. It does violate the first Amendement to show favortism towards any religious group, which in this country would likely be Evangelical Protestantism. Does this mean we can’t teach the Philosophy of religion and ethics? Of Course not. I firmly believe that Philosophy, Etthics, and Logic should be required to graduate from High School. My generation butchering itself out of existence. Kids have no morals or direction. Taking courses in Philosophy will go along way. Also, kids should not be afraid to start religious clubs in their schools. LifeTeen especially, should encourage members to start clubs in the Hedonism that is High School.

It shouldn’t be a seperation of Church and state, but a balance between Church and State.

You were dead on until you got to “the main question”. That is your add-on to the Constitution. Justices have done the same thing over the past 50+ years. That is not the main question. The main question was answered by yourself. You explained what establishment was and you explained what free exercise is. As long as the former is not done and the latter is not prevented, we’re all ok.

 

[Brad]

ShockleyHaynes:

When public, state institutions advocate specific activities that are primarily religious activities–such as the display of faith-specific texts and the encouragement to pray–then the religion and faith that promulgates both text and practice is being respected.

Correct.

ShockleyHaynes:

The endorsement of Christian ethical texts (i.e., the Ten Commandments) on government grounds is an implicit endorsement of Christian ethics, cosmology, and cosmogeny.

Ethics yes. Cosmology and cosmogony no.

ShockleyHaynes:

The endorsement of religious spiritual practice (i.e., prayer) in government policy is an implicit endorsement of faith.

It promotes it in certain situations.

ShockleyHaynes:

These things are banned, as a way of preserving the neutrality of both the courthouse and the public school. The same would occur if Islamic or Buddhist texts and practices were endorsed.

Actually, they are banned as a way of preserving the increaingly anti-Christian nature of the courthouse and the public school.

You mentinoned cosmology and cosmogony. Why is it that alternative to evolutionary theory cannot be taught as possiblities in the school? Is it because all of evolutionary theory is explicit fact? No. Is it because all people that disagree with aspects of evolutionary theory are fundamentalist Christians? No. It is because some promoters of alternate theories are Christians.

This is not neutrality. This is opposition.

 

[Brad]

ShockleyHaynes:

I crossed my eyes, re-read this, and it looked just the same!

Sorry. Try again. Christianity is the only religous belief system that allows for freedom of other beliefs. Christianity promotes denial of self rather than coercion of other. It promotes evangelization but accepts free will.

 

[system]

I voted other, because the quotation of “separation of church and state” was in a letter the Thomas Jefferson wrote to the baptists?. He was speaking about how the government would not have a religion unto themselves. They would not say that one religion was true. They did not, obviously, disagree with religion or think that our country could servive without it.

 

[ShockleyHaynes]

Ethics yes. Cosmology and cosmogony no.

The cosmology is implied by the first commandment: God exists, and there are ideals that are not God; further, pursuing those ideals that are not God is morally wrong.

The cosmogony is implied by the assertion of God’s existence, using a religion’s faith-text. One can inquire, rationally, “This document claims God’s existence; what does it say about the history of God?” This leads to cosmogony.

You mentinoned cosmology and cosmogony. Why is it that alternative to evolutionary theory cannot be taught as possiblities in the school? Is it because all of evolutionary theory is explicit fact? No. Is it because all people that disagree with aspects of evolutionary theory are fundamentalist Christians? No. It is because some promoters of alternate theories are Christians.

In which context does evolutionary theory most frequently arise? Science.

While I have philosophical disagreements with contemporary scientific practice—mostly directed toward how modern science proposes that we perceive the world beyond ourselves—I assent that within the context of methods of inquiry accepted by modern science, evolutionary theory has greater support by its development according to those methods of inquiry than creationism.

Creationism’s primary arguments, again, are drawn from traditions of faith, which imply both cosmology and cosmogony. Evolutionary theory’s primary arguments are drawn from the methods of scientific inquiry developed within rationalistic, Western civilization. Within a science classroom, the latter is acceptable, whereas the former does not belong.

 

[Brad]

ShockleyHaynes:

The cosmology is implied by the first commandment: God exists, and there are ideals that are not God; further, pursuing those ideals that are not God is morally wrong.

The cosmogony is implied by the assertion of God’s existence, using a religion’s faith-text. One can inquire, rationally, “This document claims God’s existence; what does it say about the history of God?” This leads to cosmogony.

What does cosmology or cosmogony matter in this context except that they effect ethics?

Regarding anything else (science for example), the person that favors the 10 commandments believes that God created cosmology and cosmogony and therefore is open to any science therein that does not contradict the ethics.

As far as science proving God doesn’t exist, that is not a possibility. A natural person is unable to disprove that a supernatural person (implying greater intelligence and knowledge) exists.

ShockleyHaynes:

In which context does evolutionary theory most frequently arise? Science.

While I have philosophical disagreements with contemporary scientific practice—mostly directed toward how modern science proposes that we perceive the world beyond ourselves—I assent that within the context of methods of inquiry accepted by modern science, evolutionary theory has greater support by its development according to those methods of inquiry than creationism.

So we should only teach that which has limitations (science) in schools to the extent that we exclude other solid learning disciplines such as philosphy, ethics, metaphysics and theology because they may contradict faulty science? We even exclude the science that contradicts the faulty science because if we did not we might have to teach the other disciplines.

ShockleyHaynes:

Creationism’s primary arguments, again, are drawn from traditions of faith, which imply both cosmology and cosmogony. Evolutionary theory’s primary arguments are drawn from the methods of scientific inquiry developed within rationalistic, Western civilization. Within a science classroom, the latter is acceptable, whereas the former does not belong.

Again, so we should only teach that which has limitations even to the extent that we may be teaching incorrect information? We should assume that philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, and theology do not exist when we teach science because these disciplines are not allowed? Is this any way to learn?

 

[trth_skr]

If the US federal government is based on Christian values like some are implying here, why does not the constitution say so? Many of the state governments do mention God in their preamble. See this link for a table of state statements (no pun intended):

cin.org/wyatt.html

One reason is this (possibly):

Originally, the states were considered to hold the main power, with the federal limiting itself to interstate and international issues. After the Civil war, this changed. The federal government basically bound all the states into a stronger federal union.

Before the Civil war, the states declared their submission to God, and the federal government stayed neutral.

Now that things have changed, and the federal government is quite powerful, perhaps we need to add an amendment to the constitution. Congress is working on an amendment to allow states to stop desecration of the flag. Stating submission to God seems more important. Why not work an amendment to make a simple statement about God? I realize it is not simple in today’s America, but is it not worth trying?

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[ShockleyHaynes]

>>Again, so we should only teach that which has limitations even to the extent that we may be teaching incorrect information? We should assume that philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, and theology do not exist when we teach science because these disciplines are not allowed? Is this any way to learn?<<

I’m quoting your post out of order, but I would like to highlight the spirit of this paragraph to indicate that you and I share an ideal of education. As a future educator, on the collegiate level, I believe that no discipline operates as distinct from its fellow disciplines as the physical separation of academic departments suggests. I believe, in other words, that knowledge of astronomy belongs in the literature classroom—despite the fact that the Physics Department is not located physically in the Humanities building on a given campus.

>>Regarding anything else (science for example), the person that favors the 10 commandments believes that God created cosmology and cosmogony and therefore is open to any science therein that does not contradict the ethics.<<

I don’t believe that this is so. I’ve known many people who, believing that God created the cosmos, immediately closed themselves to science that contradicted the ethics implied by the ten commandments.

The primary condition of inquiry, within the ethics of scientific rationality, draws conclusions based on observations. Further, the allowable observations are material observations. The existence of God is not a material observation; it is an interpretation or inference based on material observations. Often, it is an interpretation or inference desired by the person basing it on material observations. By the standards of inquiry required by scientific rationality, one cannot conclude “God” from grass.

This is not to say that I believe that one can’t look at grass and learn God.

>>As far as science proving God doesn’t exist, that is not a possibility. A natural person is unable to disprove that a supernatural person (implying greater intelligence and knowledge) exists.<<

This is a whole different subject, and I will leave it alone, except to say: insofar as scientific rationality is insufficient to disprove the existence of God, it is also insufficient to prove the existence of God.

The difference between teaching the truths of God and evolutionary theory is that the truth of God requires experiential evidence that cannot be replicated in all circumstances, reliably. The process of natural selection—the part of evolutionary theory that is most reliable—however, is based upon observations that can be replicated in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. With respect to more ambivalent aspects of evolutionary theory, they should be taught honestly, with admission that they are theoretical extensions of knowledge that can be affirmed empirically.

 

[ShockleyHaynes]

>>So we should only teach that which has limitations (science) in schools to the extent that we exclude other solid learning disciplines such as philosphy, ethics, metaphysics and theology because they may contradict faulty science? We even exclude the science that contradicts the faulty science because if we did not we might have to teach the other disciplines.<<

I’m curious to know who “we” are. If you’re referring to the public education system, then I disagree that “we” have an obligation to teach spiritual truth. If you’re referring to a child’s primary education within the family and home, then I agree completely that such supports are necessary to raise a child responsibly.

You can’t teach God for the same reason that you can’t teach beauty. Both experiences of God and beauty are subjective experiences, and neither can be “tested” in such a way that genuinely respects each student’s intelligence.

Your impression that philosophy and ethics validate the existence of God suggests, to me, that you have not studied widely within them. Further, to use them as a means of checking scientific education is a prostitution of their spirits. Philosophy is a discipline for imaginative curiosity, combined with rationality; when it is expected to reveal “natural” conclusions, it is being practiced improperly.

**

>>Again, so we should only teach that which has limitations even to the extent that we may be teaching incorrect information?<<

I would agree with your implied statement, if the word “incorrect” were substituted with “incomplete.” I don’t believe that incomplete information should be sought, as a goal; I believe that education should celebrate the linguistic root of the word “university,” and inspire universal awareness of life—in science, philosophy, the arts, and society. I don’t believe that this will be accomplished by the system we have now; however, I also don’t believe that it can be accomplished by any system. The attempt to systematize spiritual truth (such as the existence of God) and spiritual belief (such as Creationist cosmogony) will only bring those ideas down to the level of banality that most subjects in high school achieve for most teenagers. They will be perceived as obligations, disconnected from their emotional life, and will be disregarded.

This will be doubly true for those who do not believe in God to begin with—and whose unbelief is supported by shared unbelief at home.

 

[Angainor]

ShockleyHaynes:

When public, state institutions advocate specific activities that are primarily religious activities–such as the display of faith-specific texts and the encouragement to pray–then the religion and faith that promulgates both text and practice is being respected.

The endorsement of Christian ethical texts (i.e., the Ten Commandments) on government grounds is an implicit endorsement of Christian ethics, cosmology, and cosmogeny.

The endorsement of religious spiritual practice (i.e., prayer) in government policy is an implicit endorsement of faith.

The Federal Government cannot do anything at all about any of this. They are explicitly forbidden to take any action at all. It can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

If you don’t want such things in your state, you can work within your state to prevent it. Thank You.

 

[Angainor]

ShockleyHaynes:

Both experiences of God and beauty are subjective experiences

Beauty is not entirely subjective. Some things really are beautiful.

 

[katt33]

If we are a democracy then we should teach both evolution and creationism, particularly considering the fact that freedom of religious expression is one reason for the founding of this country and at all levels that Christian heritage should be taught and recognized. THis is no way established a national regligion, but recognizes our hertiage and that of our founders, which is the only right thing to do. Also the existence of God is for me a matter of logic. Nothing comes from nothing, there is always a being or force of creation, particularly considering the complexity of it all. It is greatly logic that there is a supreme force to be reckoned with.

 

[system]

Axion:

Is this important?

Yes. Because when Catholicism/Christianity is taken away, what is left is not a vacuum. Other philosophies take up the space. Materialism. Atheism. New-Ageism. we can see that on television and in Films, where the main characters rarely enter a church or apply Christianity to their life-choices.

While Christian images are banned, secular prophets reign supreme in the courts and elsewhere. Abortion, Euthanasia, materialism, encouraging homosexual lifestyles, become the driving policies. Anyone against them is ruthlessly attacked.

Here, here!!! :clapping: :bowdown2:

 

[trth_skr]

katt33:

If we are a democracy then we should teach both evolution and creationism, particularly considering the fact that freedom of religious expression is one reason for the founding of this country and at all levels that Christian heritage should be taught and recognized. THis is no way established a national regligion, but recognizes our hertiage and that of our founders, which is the only right thing to do. Also the existence of God is for me a matter of logic. Nothing comes from nothing, there is always a being or force of creation, particularly considering the complexity of it all. It is greatly logic that there is a supreme force to be reckoned with.

Without meaning to be overly provocative here, should we teach about masonry / deism? Most of the founding fathers were masons, deists or at least masonic sympathizers (Jefferson). Shoud we teach that masonry is luciferian and anti-Christian, too? I.e., are you proposing that we teach the truth?

I think we should, but doubt it will happen.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[katt33]

If schools teach evolution, then it is only democratic and right to teach Creationism, and to not to in any way take Christianity, which, as I see it is the root heritage of this nation, and the learning of such out of the schools, courts etc… History books now ignore the religous freedom reasons for the settlers coming, and that is just a bad sign. As I understand the constitution there is freedom of religion and expression, and though the government can’t set up a national religion, there is no grounds for not permitting a public place, our government and judiciary to recognize the religous root history of the founders, those who first came in part for religous freedom even if they were a bit over zealous and ignorant in how they treated people who perhaps had mental illness and such. Nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is religous expression and historical recognition of such banned and I think God would want that recognized. This is just my understanding of the constitution etc…

 

[trth_skr]

I understand what you are saying. You did not answer my question:

trth_skr:

Without meaning to be overly provocative here, should we teach about masonry / deism? Most of the founding fathers were masons, deists or at least masonic sympathizers (Jefferson). Shoud we teach that masonry is luciferian and anti-Christian, too? I.e., are you proposing that we teach the truth?

I think we should, but doubt it will happen.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[MikeinSD]

I read European history alot. And I think that the history of Europe explains why the US has a First Amendment. The founding fathers saw 16th and 17th century relentless warfare, characterized by protestant vs catholic, as destructive to civilization. Also, governments in the english colonies in north america had endless fights about religion. Therefore, our founding fathers decided on no established religion. Look at the no religious test for public office clause in the constitution.

200 years later, no state church is one of the glories of American civilization. The catholics, and other religious groups, thrive here. So do folks who do not have mainstream religions or none at all. And I also believe that “freedom of religion” means “freedom from religion.” So did the writers of the constitution. Otherwise, explain the “no religious test for office” clause.