Separation of religion and politics

[andrewstx]

Why are you avoiding answering my question? What law?

Do you not agree that Baptists were founded on the freedom of religion and that Rhode Island was founded on the prinicple of seperation?

Has Baptist historical revisionism gone that far?

I’m not exactly sure which law you are speaking of, I don’t think there is a statutory law to that effect. But church-state seperation is in the Constituion. It was insisted on by Ts Jefferson who had Baptists in mind at the time.

Those who forget history are bound to repeat it’s mistakes.

The nation was originally colonies of Britain who had an official state church, the Anglican church. All others were persecuted or limited in their rights. The Baptists were poorly regarded.

Is this what the opponents of church-state seperation really want?

 

[Calgar]

But church-state seperation is in the Constituion.

Where? Please be specific.

 

[Nate13]

Where? Please be specific.

To whatever extent you take the 1st Amendment to call for.

 

[sedonaman]

… But church-state seperation is in the Constituion. …

No, it isn’t. It is nothing but a bad metaphor, bad because it can mean anything you want.

 

[buffalo]

There is no such thing as separation of church and state. The Constitution states no law may be made that imposes a particular religion on its people.

Religion can influence the government as it has right from the beginning.

It is like a one way valve, flow in one direction only, from the people.

 

[andrewstx]

I think that Calgar is perhaps being obtuse, or is not informed about his own denominations historical background and principles.

Seperation of church and state is one of the Baptists founding doctrines, along with priesthood of all beleivers, soul freedom and others.

Beggining in the 80s there has been a fundamentalist takeover of the SBC, and their teaching has changed radically. The American Baptists did not have this political war and subsequent political takeover, but the SBC did.

The SBC was operated on a democratic basis, they had no creed and no bishops. Every year they have a convention where Baptists elect their President, so far so good. But in the 80s they started sending thousands of funamentalist “messengers” (that is what delegates to the convention are called). They started playing dirty pool in order to get a fundamentalist President elected. The President of the SBC has great powers of appointment to various boards and commitees. And so they no have a permenent strangle hold on the Presidency and therefore on the ensuing boards and commitees. My family has been historically Southern Baptist and I have seen in them and the convention as a whole the wholesale changes that have been made. They used to have youth groups, the RAs for boys, and the GAs for girls. All that has been swept aside mostly and now they have AWANA clubs which are of course fundamentalist in nature.

All Baptists are consevative as am I, but fundamentalism is more radical in nature. They have abandoned chruch-state seperation and now seek a theocracy with themselves as Theo. This has caused a lot of trouble and splits amoung Southern Baptists. Less fundamental but still very conservervative Baptists have formed different Associations within the SBC, and I see more trouble to come.

To give Calgar the benefit of the doubt, he may be too young to remember the old SBC before the fundamental takeover.

It’s all political, all Baptists agree on theology.

 

[Calgar]

To whatever extent you take the 1st Amendment to call for.

The 1st amendment doesn’t call for it at all. Have you read the constitution?

 

[Calgar]

I think that Calgar is perhaps being obtuse, or is not informed about his own denominations historical background and principles.

Seperation of church and state is one of the Baptists founding doctrines, along with priesthood of all beleivers, soul freedom and others.

Beggining in the 80s there has been a fundamentalist takeover of the SBC, and their teaching has changed radically. The American Baptists did not have this political war and subsequent political takeover, but the SBC did.

The SBC was operated on a democratic basis, they had no creed and no bishops. Every year they have a convention where Baptists elect their President, so far so good. But in the 80s they started sending thousands of funamentalist “messengers” (that is what delegates to the convention are called). They started playing dirty pool in order to get a fundamentalist President elected. The President of the SBC has great powers of appointment to various boards and commitees. And so they no have a permenent strangle hold on the Presidency and therefore on the ensuing boards and commitees. My family has been historically Southern Baptist and I have seen in them and the convention as a whole the wholesale changes that have been made. They used to have youth groups, the RAs for boys, and the GAs for girls. All that has been swept aside mostly and now they have AWANA clubs which are of course fundamentalist in nature.

All Baptists are consevative as am I, but fundamentalism is more radical in nature. They have abandoned chruch-state seperation and now seek a theocracy with themselves as Theo. This has caused a lot of trouble and splits amoung Southern Baptists. Less fundamental but still very conservervative Baptists have formed different Associations within the SBC, and I see more trouble to come.

To give Calgar the benefit of the doubt, he may be too young to remember the old SBC before the fundamental takeover.

It’s all political, all Baptists agree on theology.

I thought we were talking about the United States Constitution.

 

[Nate13]

The 1st amendment doesn’t call for it at all. Have you read the constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The “separation of church-state” is based on this idea of allowing for the free exercise of religion. Calling it “separation of church-state” is really stupid though, and is something thought up by people who wished to attack religion. Others are correct in saying this does not apply to the States though. It very specifically says Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The States all have their own Constitutions and if they want a state religion they should be allowed to do so. I highly doubt any state wants a state religion in this day and age though considering how widely dispersed people’s views are. A state religion would probably cause more trouble than it was worth.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The “separation of church-state” is based on this idea of allowing for the free exercise of religion. Calling it “separation of church-state” is really stupid though, and is something thought up by people who wished to attack religion. .

…like Thomas Jefferson. Did you know he tore all the “supernatural” stuff out of a Bible and made his own version? Good stuff.

 

[Calgar]

The “separation of church-state” is based on this idea of allowing for the free exercise of religion. Calling it “separation of church-state” is really stupid though, and is something thought up by people who wished to attack religion. Others are correct in saying this does not apply to the States though. It very specifically says Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The States all have their own Constitutions and if they want a state religion they should be allowed to do so. I highly doubt any state wants a state religion in this day and age though considering how widely dispersed people’s views are. A state religion would probably cause more trouble than it was worth.

There are people in this world who think that “separation of church and state” is a very real law, even thought they don’t know where to find it. They’ve heard “separation of church and state” so often that they have never even thought about questioning it.

I had a supervisor at work tell me that I couldn’t carry my Bible around with me and read it during lunch breaks because, as a government employee, me having a Bible violates the separation of church and state.

 

[Nate13]

There are people in this world who think that “separation of church and state” is a very real law, even thought they don’t know where to find it. They’ve heard “separation of church and state” so often that they have never even thought about questioning it.

I had a supervisor at work tell me that I couldn’t carry my Bible around with me and read it during lunch breaks because, as a government employee, me having a Bible violates the separation of church and state.

Shame on you for making other people have to see a Bible

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Separation of Church and State does not mean that the State can act independently of the wishes of the people. If the people are religious, and their religion prescribes a moral code, they have a right to vote their conscience. You don’t have to give up your religion in order to vote or be an employee of the State. Many of the Founders constantly referred to the Christian religion as a framework within which the Constitution would rise or fall in future history. They were certainly conscious of a need for morality, and the usual conveyers of morality from one generation to the next were the various Christian sects that made up the country. In 1776 it would have been inconceivable that a moral consensus could be arrived at without the support of the Christian denominations.

The “separation” business is intended only to prevent any one denomination from becoming the official religion of the people, and thereby entitled to be supported by taxation of all the people whether or not they belong to that religion. That was a traditional practice of Europe which has been officially abandoned in the United States. But the abandonment in no way implies that one’s personal religion (and one’s morals) can in no way enter into the process of voting or supporting or opposing certain laws.

 

[andrewstx]

I thought we were talking about the United States Constitution.

Actually I was talking more about Baptist theology and history and tradition, all of which before the fundamentalist political takeover was universally accepted by US Baptists, and which you continue to completely ignore.

I give you the benefit of the doubt. You may be so young that you don’t remember the good old days of the SBC before the fundamentalist political takeover.

But look into your own Baptist history, the founding of Rhode Island by a Baptist minister. The founding of Brown University, an Ivy league university if which you should also be proud right up there with Yale and Princeton.

Research the relationship between Thomas Jefferson 2nd president of the US and the Baptist Association of Virginia.

And please take your head out of the sand, please.

 

[Calgar]

Actually I was talking more about Baptist theology and history and tradition, all of which before the fundamentalist political takeover was universally accepted by US Baptists, and which you continue to completely ignore.

I give you the benefit of the doubt. You may be so young that you don’t remember the good old days of the SBC before the fundamentalist political takeover.

But look into your own Baptist history, the founding of Rhode Island by a Baptist minister. The founding of Brown University, an Ivy league university if which you should also be proud right up there with Yale and Princeton.

Research the relationship between Thomas Jefferson 2nd president of the US and the Baptist Association of Virginia.

And please take your head out of the sand, please.

Oh pardon me sir! I didn’t realise that you were the OP. If you wan’t to have a specific debate on the SBC just PM me.

 

[andrewstx]

Oh pardon me sir! I didn’t realise that you were the OP. If you wan’t to have a specific debate on the SBC just PM me.

I really don’'t see the point, by your conrtinued attempts to deny there is no such thing a church-state seperation it is obvious that you are a far-right Baptist fundamentalist and see things through that particular lens, and your mind is closed on the matter.

So why bother? I have gone through this debate already with my SBC family members.

Thank God the Constitution makes it impossible for the United States to become a Baptist theocracy.

 

[kama3]

When I served in Germany in the 80s, I was surprized to learn that Catholic churches received financial support from the German Government. I presumed that Lutheran Churches and others received government support as well but I do not know for sure.

That’s not quite so. Germany has a church tax, which means that the tax authorities will forward a set percentage of your income to the church of your choice. If you are an atheist, you declare so, and keep the money. Note that cuts both ways, though: declaration to stop paying the tax is recognized by your church as a formal act of apostasy.

Despite that, Germany has both freedom of religion and legal separation of church and state.

 

[essie7777]

The debate on separation of Church and state constantly comes up no matter what you are discussing. From posts i have read this is blamed for or stated as the root cause for not having the Catholic faith represented in laws here in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). I would put forward for discussion that this is too simplistic a position.

It seems to be a general consensus that separation of church and state in the constitution is about prohibiting a state run religion and that the practice of any faith is protected. No one seems to disagree with that statement.

Doesn’t the issue come down then, not so much separation religious beliefs and morality being represented in a nation’s laws, but rather to the fact that democratic process is proving consistently that faith, especially Catholic faith, is simply not powerful enough politically to have the impact it wants. It is not the majority view point.

Numerous posters have commented that individuals vote on their faith and beliefs. this is sound common sense, but if laws don’t reflect this belief that is not down to the complete separation of church and state, rather it represents what the majority believe, and that, unfortunately isn’t Catholic morality.

This may explain why a lot of people, even Catholics, don’t understand the way some of these issues dominate politics in the manner they do in the US arena. It can come across as a backwards way of trying to implement change.

To change law is not about shouting that it is unfair/immoral and just wrong, because in reality it isn’t when you look that it objectively; it is the democratic process in practice that creates the laws.

To implement change should this not be focused on the beliefs of the population, because by using arguments against how democracy has implemented laws we do not believe in simply opens us up, as a faith, to criticism about trying to force our beliefs on the majority. If we changed the public’s opinion than a debate about church and state separation is defunct because then maybe our beliefs hold the majority. Then our morality is represented as the majority view point. Thus it becomes law.

I am not sure if i have explained that well, i hope i have, and i am interested in people’s thoughts.

 

[Calgar]

see things through that particular lens, and your mind is closed on the matter.

Right back at’cha.

A narrow view sees better.

 

[Nate13]

The debate on separation of Church and state constantly comes up no matter what you are discussing. From posts i have read this is blamed for or stated as the root cause for not having the Catholic faith represented in laws here in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). I would put forward for discussion that this is too simplistic a position.

It seems to be a general consensus that separation of church and state in the constitution is about prohibiting a state run religion and that the practice of any faith is protected. No one seems to disagree with that statement.

Doesn’t the issue come down then, not so much separation religious beliefs and morality being represented in a nation’s laws, but rather to the fact that democratic process is proving consistently that faith, especially Catholic faith, is simply not powerful enough politically to have the impact it wants. It is not the majority view point.

Numerous posters have commented that individuals vote on their faith and beliefs. this is sound common sense, but if laws don’t reflect this belief that is not down to the complete separation of church and state, rather it represents what the majority believe, and that, unfortunately isn’t Catholic morality.

This may explain why a lot of people, even Catholics, don’t understand the way some of these issues dominate politics in the manner they do in the US arena. It can come across as a backwards way of trying to implement change.

To change law is not about shouting that it is unfair/immoral and just wrong, because in reality it isn’t when you look that it objectively; it is the democratic process in practice that creates the laws.

To implement change should this not be focused on the beliefs of the population, because by using arguments against how democracy has implemented laws we do not believe in simply opens us up, as a faith, to criticism about trying to force our beliefs on the majority. If we changed the public’s opinion than a debate about church and state separation is defunct because then maybe our beliefs hold the majority. Then our morality is represented as the majority view point. Thus it becomes law.

I am not sure if i have explained that well, i hope i have, and i am interested in people’s thoughts.

It seems a majority of people in the United States knows that homosexuality is immoral though do they not? Yet, this subject is constantly under attack from all sides and I have seen enough people who are basically pro-choicer’s in the homosexuality cause. “Well I myself believe its wrong, but I don’t want to “push” my religious beliefs on others”. The abortion issue is even more clear about this considering up to 70% will say they personally believe abortion is wrong. There is a sizable chunk of people who are convinced that they would be pushing their religious beliefs on people if they supported ending abortion or continuing to fight against promoting homosexual marriage.

The understanding of “church-state” relation is an important subject.