Separation of church and state

  • Thread starter Thread starter utunumsint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I see that you are all diverging into areas quite frankly, a little over my head, but this is something a dear friend said when I explained the debate (as best I could) on this thread:

<<This is a deep rabbit hole you will spend many hours, months, etc. wandering through Wonderland as you meet people on the the journey of separation of church and state.

1st. You are right that many of the founding fathers were deists. The Declaration of Independence is in fact full of such thinking. As far as being “Christians”, yes, many were identified with and members and active in Christian congregations, even many of the deists.

2nd. Since at the time the church and state were in many colonies working together, and the church controlled education, it is both inaccurate and accurate to say that 27 of the founding fathers went to “bible colleges or seminaries”.

3rd. Yes, there were some devout Christians that wanted God to be part of the govening of the U.S., but even these were wary of allowing Congress to establish which denomination that would be. Also, just as today, if one wanted to get elected, or get certain states to join Union, one had to play to the religious crowd.

4th. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law…, but says nothing about individual states. The 14th Amendment furthers the protection and the concept to individual states.

All of these ideas can be expanded and argued ad infinitum…

My thoughts: The more separation of church and state, (national, state, and local), the better. Such separation is constitutional. God may play a role in government, but church should not, and after reading about the places and ways God continues to speak to people through the history of different civilizations, regimes, cultures, etc., I’m not sure he’s all that interested in how you are going to vote, but what you are doing every day. Voting matters, btw, but whether Mitt Romney wins, or Barack Obama, I have confidence that God and Christians will survive and thrive–just maybe with different tax burdens.>>

Sorry for diverging from the focus of this thread as it is now going…
 
There is no such thing.

The letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists was about their fear that the State would impose one religion on its people, as was the case in England.

loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

The words “separation of Church and State” do not appear in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. It is a fiction.

truenews.org/Religious_Freedom/separation_of_church_and_state.html

The founders were Deists? That is false.

adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Peace,
Ed
 
buffalo said:
Very simple - the state should not impose on its people, religion should propose to the state.
Click to expand...
Best way I’ve ever seen it put. 👍

Another way of saying it would be religion is the conscience of the state.
 
Victorygirl said:
Excuse me. I meant the most important and influential founding fathers such as:

John Adams
Benjamin Franklin
Alexander Hamilton
John Jay (Only he I think was an Orthodox Christian)
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
George Washington

“It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov’t from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.”
James Madison, “James Madison on Religious Liberty”, edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238 .

I could go on, but I think my point is clear. I am a devout Christian, hoping to be a Catholic soon, but I do not wish to fool myself. That is where I am coming from. If it comes to the point that there is too much sway in a way I find unconscionable, Then I guess I have to part ways. I hope not tho… Thanks for your understanding and I hope not to be taking away from the OP…
Click to expand...
Your Madison quote is what I said in that the point of the establishment clause is to protect religion from governmental interference, such as persecuting a person for being the “wrong” religion.

As to your points about the others you might want to more research. The principles upon which this country was founded are the general principles of Christianity.

Congratulations on becoming Catholic!

PAX
 
I can’t agree…sorry. New republicanism, adherents, and “true news” won’t help you. You’re wrong.
edwest2 said:
There is no such thing.

The letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists was about their fear that the State would impose one religion on its people, as was the case in England.

loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

The words “separation of Church and State” do not appear in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. It is a fiction.

truenews.org/Religious_Freedom/separation_of_church_and_state.html

The founders were Deists? That is false.

adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
Very simple - the state should not impose on its people, religion should propose to the state.
Click to expand...
Sounds simple enough. Though there are some cases where that boundary is not clear. Such as in areas in public safety where a law or regulation created with ones well being in mind conflicts with a religious belief (some faith healer conflicts come to mind, such as when a parent rejects medical attention for a child in a near death state because it would be a display of weak faith in their God).
 
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX said:
I’m not sure I follow what you mean.
Click to expand...
In your post #7, I thought you meant that the Church in part had previously promulgated the idea that “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”, and that the Pope was declaring that it was an error… :eek:

I didn’t realize that the original documents in which the syllabus of errors was referencing were so widespread… Still, I would like to know exactly what the original document was from that the Pope was condemning.
 
TEPO said:
In your post #7, I thought you meant that the Church in part had previously promulgated the idea that “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”, and that the Pope was declaring that it was an error… :eek:
Click to expand...
Clarification: His Holiness, Pope Pius IX condemned the above notion that: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”.
TEPO said:
I didn’t realize that the original documents in which the syllabus of errors was referencing were so widespread… Still, I would like to know exactly what the original document was from that the Pope was condemning.
Click to expand...
The Syllabus of Errors was not condemning any specific documents, the Syllabus was condemning certain notions that had been deigned as “heresy” or “modernism”. You can find the condemnation of the separation of Church and State on #55 in the Syllabus. Unfortunately, His Holiness cited an address that has yet to be translated from Italian (Acerbissimum)
 
ManRay said:
I can’t agree…sorry. New republicanism, adherents, and “true news” won’t help you. You’re wrong.
Click to expand...
From the Farewell Address of George Washington - 1796

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
From the Farewell Address of George Washington - 1796

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Like I wrote before - You can find any speech or letter that waxes and wanes with the emotional state of any given moment. The separation of church and state falls along the lines regarding lawmaking, and actual repercussions of such laws etc…etc… Lawmakers can be of faith - any faith, but their faith cannot be the root of a law that affects society as a whole. THIS WOULD NEVER WORK. Since you are christian, and our forefathers were christian(barely) it’s easy to say - hey yea man - church should totally be involved in government - But why don’t you hang out in a theocratic nation that ISN’T Christian, and then come back and tell me if you still agree. Get caught stealing in Sharia controlled areas, of Africa, and Arabia and it’s quite possible that you may get your right hand cut off. But then again maybe you feel that people should be tortured, and mutilated for punishment. Maybe you don’t care if women are stoned to death on a dirt road somewhere. We live in a democratic republic. We don’t live in a theocratic dictatorship.
 
utunumsint said:
…Seems fairly arbitrary. Why not a separation of Holywood and state? Or science and state?

I know that there are historical reasons for this.For example, the religious wars in Europe and Americans trying to set aside their religious differences for the sake of building up a better world. Seems like in the states it is the IRS that polices this boundary.Seems like Obama and Biden want to shrink the domain of church into an ever smaller territory.

Any thoughts on what the proper boundary, if any, should be?

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
History check- The history of British religious persecutions played a far greater role in the idea of the separation of the two than the so called religious wars in Europe (if you review said wars, you’ll find religion was more of an excuse for the wars than the prime driver for them).
 
sedonaman said:
And I’ve never seen anyone offer any proof that they were deists. 👍
Click to expand...
Read the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine - Deists are Christians - they just don’t quite believe that god has been revealed to us in the way a catholic would. Many were Free Masons - think about that.
 
utunumsint said:
…Seems fairly arbitrary. Why not a separation of Holywood and state? Or science and state?

I know that there are historical reasons for this.For example, the religious wars in Europe and Americans trying to set aside their religious differences for the sake of building up a better world. Seems like in the states it is the IRS that polices this boundary.Seems like Obama and Biden want to shrink the domain of church into an ever smaller territory.

Any thoughts on what the proper boundary, if any, should be?

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
Emotion + government = disaster.
 
ManRay said:
Read the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine - Deists are Christians - they just don’t quite believe that god has been revealed to us in the way a catholic would. Many were Free Masons - think about that.
Click to expand...
A deist believes that God created the universe and had nothing more to do with it. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and as such is God Himself come to save mankind. The belief of the deist is contrary to this basic Christian belief, and, therefore, a deist cannot be a Christian. Think about that.
 
kingpomba said:
What if that church wasn’t yours?

Let’s dabble in a little alternative history and say you grew up and lived under an Islamic government heavily intertwined with the church, would you still be against separation?
Click to expand...
Exactly! Most people on CAF would be happy to have any State representatives who are Catholic try to incorporate their religious views into their politics, and in fact, insist on it. I guarantee those people would not be so happy about people ‘using their conscience’ and ‘following Church’ laws and rules, if they were of another religion, and doing the same. People in general really don’t value another viewpoint or religion as being as important as they value their own.
 
sedonaman said:
A deist believes that God created the universe and had nothing more to do with it. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and as such is God Himself come to save mankind. The belief of the deist is contrary to this basic Christian belief, and, therefore, a deist cannot be a Christian. Think about that.
Click to expand...
Ok - deists believe in god, and went to Christian churches…my bad:thumbsup:
 
Rence said:
Exactly! Most people on CAF would be happy to have any State representatives who are Catholic try to incorporate their religious views into their politics, and in fact, insist on it. I guarantee those people would not be so happy about people ‘using their conscience’ and ‘following Church’ laws and rules, if they were of another religion, and doing the same. People in general really don’t value another viewpoint or religion as being as important as they value their own.
Click to expand...
TRUTH!!!
And our forefathers knew it!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top