Separation of Church and State?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Malachi4U
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Malachi4U

Guest
In the USA we take great pride in the seperation of Church and State. Obviously the Catholic Church finds it OK to combine the two. What better leader for a nation then a man who follows God and makes others follow Gods law? No abortion, etc…

Now for the Protestants. We live in a Protestant country that prides itself on seperation of church and state. What do you think of this issue?

For all of you who want a Democracy (A Republic if you’re American), when you get to heaven will you ask God to give up His political power so you can be self represented and tell Him just to stick to His religion at home? Why the difference?
 
Would you like to live in a nation where you are subject to God’s laws, as interpreted by whomever happens to be president at the time?

You might enjoy that if Archbishop Burke was president. Would you enjoy it if Oprah was president (which is more likely)? What about: Jesse Jackson, Tom Cruise, the Rev. Horton Heat, or that crazy guy on TV who shouts all the time?

I think you are happy if US law = God’s law = the law as defined by the conservative wing of the Catholic Church.
 
*US federal court rejects separation of church and state
  • Cincinnati, Dec. 22 (CWNews.com) - The First Amendment to the US Constitution “does not demand a wall of separation between church and state,” a federal court has ruled.
In a surprising decision this week, the 6th Circuit US Court of Appeals approved the display of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky county. In writing the decision for a unanimous court, Just Richard Suhrheinrich rejected the arguments of lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union (ALCU), which protested the display. The judge wrote: “The ACLU makes repeated reference to the ‘separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome.”

The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution, the judge observed. He added that American history “is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion.”

more…

A great Christmas present.

Well that is because it is not there. Hoorah!!!👍
 
buffalo said:
US federal court rejects separation of church and state

Cincinnati, Dec. 22 (CWNews.com) - The First Amendment to the US Constitution “does not demand a wall of separation between church and state,” a federal court has ruled.

In a surprising decision this week, the 6th Circuit US Court of Appeals approved the display of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky county. In writing the decision for a unanimous court, Just Richard Suhrheinrich rejected the arguments of lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union (ALCU), which protested the display. The judge wrote: “The ACLU makes repeated reference to the ‘separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome.”

The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution, the judge observed. He added that American history “is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion.”

more…

A great Christmas present.

Well that is because it is not there. Hoorah!!!👍
Click to expand...

The constitution is clear that religion should not be infringed on by the government. This means that we should be free to practice our religion until the practice of our religion denies another of his Constitutional right to life, liberty and happiness. Practice of religion is primarily the means of worship.

The Constitution is clear that we have the right to assemble (whether as an atheist group or a Christian group) and petition our government. This means that either as an individual or as a group we can come together and influence our government by any lawful means available.

The problem we currently have is that judges/justices have errantly interpreted the 1st Amendment in a way such that religious organizations are denied rights afforded to non-religious groups (ie the ACLU, Sierra Club, Taxpayer organizations, Political Action Committees, political parties). In short, religious entities are essentially second class groups.

This all being said, we do have to watch for certain discriminatory “establishment” of religion issues. For instance, I suggest that one read a book on Charles Carroll (brother of the first Bishop in America) and the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence (I think he also was a signer of the Consitution). It will give you insight of the wording that he kept out of I believe both documents to insure that the rights of Catholics were protected and allowed to participate in the Government.

Personally, I see more issues w/ the 10 Commandments engraved in stone in government buildings especially court houses that are supposed to be blind to race, creed, religion, gender, etc. than I do school prayer. I think that the freedom to worship and assemble is absolute meaning that while the powers of the state can’t be used to force one to worship or participate in prayer, it is lawful for any American to assemble to worship even in a classroom. If a non-Christian is discriminated against, there is a violation of their rights. If the non-Christian feels umcomfortable, too bad.

If my child attended a school where the predominant religion in the area was buddhism and they said a prayer to Buddha, I’d instruct my child to quietly forego participation in the prayer, discretely make a sign of hte cross and say the Lord’s prayer to herself.

If my child attended a school where the predominant religion was Christian, I’d do my best to make sure that the prayer wasn’t contrary to our faith. If it was acceptable, I’d encourage her to pray it with her Protestant classmates as it is a way that we all come together as one. If the prayer was unacceptable, see the buddhist paragraph. Additionally, I’d instruct my daughter to respect the classmates who do not share our Christian faith and instruct her to remember her non-Christian classmates in a special way by asking the Holy Spirit to be w/ these classmates also.
 
The government has no business directing and regulating religious activities. That is what is covered by the First Amendment. But the idea that religious people should put their beliefs aside in politics is beyond absurd.
 
🙂 This is a great article for getting a handle on the Church and State issue!!

The Things that are Not Caesar’s by Thaddeus J. Kozinski

How to Catch Fish, Unlock Locke, and Settle the Just Bounds of Church and State

Stanley Fish is infamous for his subversive talents, especially his ability to deconstruct what seem to be impregnable arguments with a mixture of penetrating intuition, rigorous analysis, and ironical wit. Catholic scholars skeptical to the coherence of liberal political thought owe Fish a great debt for his uncanny ability to expose the rotting skeleton of liberal orthodoxy, revealing the irrational and intolerant dogmas hiding underneath its shiny skin. Although normally the enemy of secular liberalism is the friend of Catholicism, this is not quite the case with Stanley Fish; for, Fish’s postmodern anti-liberalism is really a more advanced metastasization of modernism, and is therefore as much an enemy to traditional Catholicism as enlightenment Liberalism. Nevertheless, Fish has done some great work, and it is worthwhile for Catholics to study him. We should appreciate and utilize the good wherever it can be found. Fish affords Catholics effective arguments against the regnant, ubiquitous, and deceptive liberalism, and we can profit from them.
seattlecatholic.com/a050928.html
Shalom,
Catherine
 
The non Church-state seperation in Ireland, since her birth, as I view it, was not bad. It suffered a severe shock in the seventies and eighties, as did the Irish people with their religion, (Down to 55% attendance because of what happened during those years), but we still retain some Church state relations, and are very friendly towards the Church (The Irish government pays for the sexual abuse; not the Church).

It’s not a bad thing, unless you’re a Social Liberal/Socialist. (E.g. Homosexuality was only decriminalised ten years ago. Abortion is still, almost, a 100% no. Divorce came in roughly 15 or so years ago.)

Basically in Church State relations, it means the Church has a large role to play, and advises the government a lot. E.g. Ireland was always a religious country, if you were disliked by the Church; you were disliked by society. So in politics, that had a major affect. (Albeit, not a negative one)

You all seem to have a rather… Bleak view of it. I wonder, is that because you grew up, knowing not what it is you’re afraid of?

(And, of course, Ireland is democratic, and a republic.)
 
C’Mon, lets give the Protestants something to worry about! We’ll take over the US and replace the gov’t with a Catholic Theocracy…the Pope can be our head of state (set up similar to the British prliamentary system maybe?)… 😃
 
The deeper question should be whether nationalism is ever going to go hand in hand with Christianity. In my opinion, this would never work. Christ did not call for us to follow our nation. He actually commands us to do just the opposite. If the Church were to be one and all under the Church followed the laws and sacraments fully, there would be absolutely no room for “state”. :confused:
 
40.png
Someone1111:
The government has no business directing and regulating religious activities. That is what is covered by the First Amendment. But the idea that religious people should put their beliefs aside in politics is beyond absurd.
Click to expand...
Is the First Amendment more powerfull and more authoratative then God’s law then?

If religious belief is absurd as you say, then is it OK to change our laws to allow people who think like you to be slaves? If there is no God in politics then there is no right or wrong outside what those in power say? By your logic, Sadam Insane was correct and justified in murdering with poisinous gasses and torture millions of his people? (Or were they God’s people?) By your statement, people have no rights outside what the current rulling class chooses to give them - or not.

If you read our Constitution you will find that the writters used God as the power that gave us rights, not the Government.

So by your statement, would a king born of noble birth who grew up to be a bisexual, power happy king have the right to write his own Bible to his own opinions and then tell everyone to use it in order to preserve his throne and power be right? I guess King James was right since he had more authority on earth then God?
 
40.png
imroc:
The deeper question should be whether nationalism is ever going to go hand in hand with Christianity. In my opinion, this would never work. Christ did not call for us to follow our nation. He actually commands us to do just the opposite. If the Church were to be one and all under the Church followed the laws and sacraments fully, there would be absolutely no room for “state”. :confused:
Click to expand...
Yes it does, if religion controls the state; religion IS the state. And therefore, Nationalism is towards the religious state and/or religion itself.
 
I completely opposed to any hint of antidisestablishmentarianism for a few reasons. First, when religion and politics lay in the same bed, it is inevitable that the corrupt always present in politics will affect the church, making it vulgar. Second, I believe in love for all humanity, and in theocracies, people who do not subscribe to the state religion are at best 2nd class citizens Finally, when all of God’s laws are explicitly the laws of land, for most people there will be no faith involved in obeying holy law. When a religion, be it Catholic or otherwise, is being followed because the government is requiring it vicariously through the law, salvation through faith becomes much harder. Not to mention the fact that forcing “infidels” to follow your religious laws has historically been a bad idea, unless you’re going to kill the holdouts.
 
Someone111:
But the idea that religious people should put their beliefs aside in politics is beyond absurd.
Click to expand...
40.png
Malachi4U:
If religious belief is absurd as you say, then is it OK to change our laws to allow people who think like you to be slaves? If there is no God in politics then there is no right or wrong outside what those in power say? By your logic, Sadam Insane was correct and justified in murdering with poisinous gasses and torture millions of his people? (Or were they God’s people?) By your statement, people have no rights outside what the current rulling class chooses to give them - or not.
Click to expand...
Malachi, Someone didn’t write that religious belief is absurd. Someone wrote that expecting politicians to set aside their beliefs is absurd - which is actually more or less the current state of affairs.
 
I have been absent from this forumn since Christmas began, so I would like to thank Lapsed for defending my honour.

My point was that it should not be a two way street. Political influence on religion is bad. Regligious influence on politics is not only acceptable, but laudable.

To paraphrase Our Lord, a man divided against himself cannot stand. Such is the case when you ask people to check the religious conviction before passing through the Congressional cloak rooms.
 
40.png
Lapsed:
Malachi, Someone didn’t write that religious belief is absurd. Someone wrote that expecting politicians to set aside their beliefs is absurd - which is actually more or less the current state of affairs.
Click to expand...
If I were Protestant I’d simply say, "That’s my interpretation from the Holy Spirit working within me. So I’m right! Who are you to say your interpretation is better then mine? All interpretations are correct since the Holy Spirit works within us all!

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!"

Now you may notice I am not Protestant any longer (i.e. Baptist) PRAISE GOD!👍 So I guess I could say you appear to be correct?:rolleyes:
 
Orion wrote:

“religious organizations are denied rights afforded to non-religious groups”

What rights are denied?
 
The reason I want seperation of Church and state is because I don’t want a fundamentalist protestant president and congress and house telling me that I cannot be a Roman Catholic because the RCC is the whore of babylon and the Pope is the anti-Christ. I also don’t want to emulate the Muslim world where there is no speration and all “goverment is of Allah.” The “gate is narrow” for a reason…
 
The reason I voted no for separation of Church and State was that the State has the obligation to assist the True Faith (Catholicism) through temporal means.

There should not be a bottomless rift between a properly ordered State and the only True Faith. They each have their realm, but they need not be strictly separated.

A government that was closely tied to Protestantism, Islam, or whatever else are fundamentally flawed because those are false religions. Thus, a State has a moral obligation to not be associated with these religions.

However, since we don’t quite have the muscle to do this, I will put up with a society that does not establish any religion.
 
40.png
St.Eric:
The reason I want seperation of Church and state is because I don’t want a fundamentalist protestant president and congress and house telling me that I cannot be a Roman Catholic because the RCC is the whore of babylon and the Pope is the anti-Christ. I also don’t want to emulate the Muslim world where there is no speration and all “goverment is of Allah.” The “gate is narrow” for a reason…
Click to expand...
I think this is popular confusion. We can have Free Exercise and not have an established state religion without a hard separation of church and state.

A fundamentalist outlawing Catholicism or Muslim imposing a “government of Allah” violates the tenets of free exercise and therefore is not in keeping with constitutional principles.

The idea of separate spheres existing for Church, state, science, personal life, work, etc. is post enlightenment nonsense. We would say that it is ridiculous for a someone to say that their religious convictions do not affect their personal morality. By the same token, someone who argues that their religious/personal beliefs do not have a role in forming their political ideologies is fundamentally untrustworthy.
 
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
The reason I voted no for separation of Church and State was that the State has the obligation to assist the True Faith (Catholicism) through temporal means.

There should not be a bottomless rift between a properly ordered State and the only True Faith. They each have their realm, but they need not be strictly separated.

A government that was closely tied to Protestantism, Islam, or whatever else are fundamentally flawed because those are false religions. Thus, a State has a moral obligation to not be associated with these religions.

However, since we don’t quite have the muscle to do this, I will put up with a society that does not establish any religion.
Click to expand...
In that case, most Americans freely choose a fundamentally flawed state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top