When people cry "Separation of church and state!", you say: ______________

[Tantum_ergo]

Ah, but you see Christianity is not some religion that is ‘only’ 2000 years old.

Christianity is the summit of all religion, all morality. It is Judaism fulfilled; Judaism itself in its monotheism is the recognition of the truth of which all ‘religions’ had glimpsed some kernal of ultimate eternal Truth.

So Christianity existed (as did Christ, Second Person of the Trinity) ‘before’ humanity itself existed. All morality (which is indeed complex but in essence is ‘what is God’s will, that is, what is good as defined by God’) comes from God and thus is embodied in persons, especially in the Person of Christ.

 

[sidonius]

Of course, keep Church and State separate. But don’t try to separate religion from society!

 

[strngrnrth]

Realms are separate but they do affect one another, as fields of study in a university do. Though chemistry is separate from grammar, we allow the rules of grammar to apply to our chemistry research papers, and though chemistry is separate from art, if we try to get by in sprayfoam sculpture without regard to the rules of chemistry, trouble results. Likewise, church life and political life are two different things, but truth remains true regardless of what classroom we ar ein at the moment.

 

[RobbyS]

I say, you’re right!

Religion is a very personal thing, and government is a very public institution. All of the taxpayers of the United States help support public schools, parks, and the like. Therefore it is unreasonable to ask them to support something that they fundamentally disagree with, such as having “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance or even reciting it at all. It would be the same as having your local municipal government using your tax money to erect a statue of Buddha in the local park.

Wrong. Christianity is a very public thing. The churches are major institutions in American society, as public as any corporation. As such churches are subject to the public law, and their members, as citizerns of the United States, as free to have political opinions as anyone else. The United States was founded by men who when they spoke of religion were not thinking of religions in general but of Christianity and of Protestant Christianity in partricular, which they thought of as the true form of Christianity. Catholics,Jews et al. were granted the same indiviudal rights as Protestants, including the right to hold public office and to vote. . Protestants, of course, were divided among many different bodies of churchmen, but there were many unchurched who were by preference Protestant. During the First half of the 19th Century, the number of unchurched streadily diminished, so that by 1860 the great majority were afiliated with one or another of the Protestant “denominations”. The largest body of citizens outside these denominations were the Catholics, mostly recent immigrants. On the eve of the Civil War, therefore, Protestantism was the informal state religion and in every government body from schools boards to the Presidency was treated as such. Local concessions were made to Catholics, jews, Mormons, where they were strong. This remained the situation until after WWII when liberal judges redefined the First Amendment and adopted a a new meaning for the term “separation of church and state.”

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

So Christianity existed (as did Christ, Second Person of the Trinity) ‘before’ humanity itself existed. All morality (which is indeed complex but in essence is ‘what is God’s will, that is, what is good as defined by God’) comes from God and thus is embodied in persons, especially in the Person of Christ.

This seems like a huge cop out to me. Historically and empirically speaking, Christianity did not exist before humanity.

Of course, not believing in God puts a bit of a damper on that sort of view of morality for me. So unless we want to bring that cat out of the bag. You and anyone else can feel free to PM me to continue this conversation, I love to talk about this sort of stuff.

 

[Aramis]

This comes up all the time with making our kids say the Pledge of Allegiance using the word “God” or having “In God We Trust” in our courts, etc. What is the response?

The Constitution merely permits Freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion.

 

[mintavia]

Separating Church and State is to seperates man from God. You can not take away a mans intrinsic right to worship (which includes public displays of affection) just because you get uncomforatable.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, morality can exist apart from religion, but it is rare. As secularization of our society has increased, so has its immorality.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This seems like a huge cop out to me. Historically and empirically speaking, Christianity did not exist before humanity.

Of course, not believing in God puts a bit of a damper on that sort of view of morality for me. So unless we want to bring that cat out of the bag. You and anyone else can feel free to PM me to continue this conversation, I love to talk about this sort of stuff.

Well, you see, you don’t believe in God and I do. One of us is right and one is wrong. . .and if God does exist, He is going to exist whether or not you believe in Him and whether or not I believe in Him. But you see, your belief (or rather disbelief) is moot in a sense. . . Christianity DID exist before humanity. Christianity did not ‘spring up’ after Christ as its own separate little religious view that was just one of many different little ‘religions’ that a group of individuals raised up in the course of time. Christianity fulfilled Judaism which itself was the fulfilment of preexisting religious views that were the OUTWARD manifestations of the INWARD relationships that people had. . .from the dawn of humanity . . .developed with God. For religion is that–a relationship with God. Christianity is special in that the relationship with God for Christians not only was fulfilled since the dawn of man (Christ is fully man) but before humanity (Christ is fully God).

Tough stuff for a nonbeliever to assimilate but absolutely essential for your understanding of Christianity. For if you think that Christianity is just another ‘movement’ of some vague spiritualist ‘stuff’ that is ‘religious’ in nature, you don’t understand the nature of real religion at all, and Christianity in particular, and we’ll just be talking past each other.

 

[Mirdath]

“That’s not what the Constitution says.”

“But the Treaty of Tripoli rather strongly implies it, and treaties to which these United States are a party are the highest law of the land”.
Treaty of Tripoli:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

 

[wabrams]

As an advocate for separation of church and state, I want to make it clear that many of us make no reference to the Constitution when we talk about it. Besides, I don’t take the Constitution as “The Infallible Word of The Founding Fathers” any more than I consider the Bible as the infallible word of God.

Thomas Jefferson, at least, did see a problem with the integration of church and government, as seen in the letter that Tantum Ergo references.

Prayer has always been allowed in schools, and still is. Students and teachers are more than welcome to pray on their own time. Still, the argument that something has always been a certain way, and therefore it should continue, is a weak one.

If you had actually read the series of letters, then you would see this is not the case at all. The discussion was in regards to a friend asking him if our new country would establish a state religion like the Church of England and Mr. Jefferson believed that the state and church should remain seperate when it comes to endorsement.

 

[sidonius]

Let us not forget that at the time of adoption of the Constitution, many states had established churches, and continued to have them. Massachusetts did not dis-establish the Congregational and Unitarian branches of the Puritan religion until the early 1820s.

 

[GodIsWithUs]

. Put extremely simply, actions that create suffering are immoral

I wonder how many people think abortion causes zero “suffering” to the “fetus” and thereby conclude abortion is moral.

 

[rwoehmke]

The Constitution was not meant to separate Religion and State, but to prevent the Federal Government from establishing a particular Church. It was acceptable for the individual States to do so for quite some time until the federal mandate against a state church was extended to the individual state. Church was understood to mean a particular denomination which allowed protestant Christianity and the Bible to be taught in public schools. That was one reason why the Catholic Church set about establishing its own schools. It wasn’t until well into the 20th Century that these other churches, denominations, came under attack by secularists who wanted all references to religion, including the Bible, from government supported schools. They got their way and today our public school system is far different from what was envisioned by the founding fathers.

Check out McGuffye’s readers and other material used in American school systems less than 100 years ago and you will see what I mean.

 

[RobHom]

Separating Church and State is to seperates man from God.

I have to disagree with that statement. Keeping government secular in nature does not separate man from God. Only man can separate himself from God. I know that the exception is communist regimes, but in a democracy or republic this is not the case.

You can not take away a mans intrinsic right to worship (which includes public displays of affection) just because you get uncomforatable.

No-one is attempting to take away anyone’s intrinsic right to worship. The US Constitution protects our right to freedom of religion. It denies nothing.

Frankly, I am an avid advocate of separation of Church and State. Why? Simply because in spite of my religious beliefs (Catholic)…I am a pragmatist. I have absolutely no desire to live in a country where this religion or that religion frames the rules of my life. To allow one religion or the other to establish the rules of life, according to their particular sectarian beliefs would be intrinsically evil where all others are concerned.

You have to view this issue through a narrow prism. I will use these forums as proof: Would any of you desire to live under rules promulgated by any other person you have encountered in these forums…especially those who diverge greatly from your beliefs? The answer is simple: No you would not! It is incumbent to understand that to embrace Religion in Government, that is what you will deal with. It goes well beyond “prayer in school”. In fact, that is a truly minor issue as far as things go.

Before you throw yourself on the sword of “Religion is the State and the State is the Religion”…do some relevant history searches and see where those types of government have led.

It would not work in this country (US)…our population is far to diverse and we have present probably every religion on the planet.
For any religion to control the law would be to foment insurrection and could even go so far as to incite rebellion or civil war.

 

[RobbyS]

I have to disagree with that statement. Keeping government secular in nature does not separate man from God. Only man can separate himself from God. I know that the exception is communist regimes, but in a democracy or republic this is not the case.

No-one is attempting to take away anyone’s intrinsic right to worship. The US Constitution protects our right to freedom of religion. It denies nothing.

Frankly, I am an avid advocate of separation of Church and State. Why? Simply because in spite of my religious beliefs (Catholic)…I am a pragmatist. I have absolutely no desire to live in a country where this religion or that religion frames the rules of my life. To allow one religion or the other to establish the rules of life, according to their particular sectarian beliefs would be intrinsically evil where all others are concerned.

You have to view this issue through a narrow prism. I will use these forums as proof: Would any of you desire to live under rules promulgated by any other person you have encountered in these forums…especially those who diverge greatly from your beliefs? The answer is simple: No you would not! It is incumbent to understand that to embrace Religion in Government, that is what you will deal with. It goes well beyond “prayer in school”. In fact, that is a truly minor issue as far as things go.

Before you throw yourself on the sword of “Religion is the State and the State is the Religion”…do some relevant history searches and see where those types of government have led.

It would not work in this country (US)…our population is far to diverse and we have present probably every religion on the planet.
For any religion to control the law would be to foment insurrection and could even go so far as to incite rebellion or civil war.

You seem to ignore the facts of history. The common law was fundamental to American government and society, and it was powerfully influenced by the Christian religion, but only some of its principles immediately affected the operations of the national government. The first article of magna carta guaranteed the rights of the Church. The Constitution established a national government was intended to be different from that of Great Britain. There was no crown, no Lords, no commons, and of course no Church. There was to be, as in Britian, no religous test for national office. this was as far as separation of Church and State went. That is until 1948 when the Supreme Court redefined the term in the course of handling the question of federal aid to education. How litle concerned with separation were they in the beginning that after Washington’s inauguration, the president and Congress went to Trinity Episcopal Church for a religious service.

 

[RobHom]

You seem to ignore the facts of history. The common law was fundamental to American government and society, and it was powerfully influenced by the Christian religion, but only some of its principles immediately affected the operations of the national government.

No, I’m not ignoring any facts of history. I am well aware of the fact that Judeo-Christian values shaped the original mores of this country.

The first article of magna carta guaranteed the rights of the Church. The Constitution established a national government was intended to be different from that of Great Britain. There was no crown, no Lords, no commons, and of course no Church. There was to be, as in Britian, no religous test for national office. this was as far as separation of Church and State went.

Except that the Constitution specifically prevented the adoption of “state religion”, and guaranteed freedom of religion.

That is until 1948 when the Supreme Court redefined the term in the course of handling the question of federal aid to education. How litle concerned with separation were they in the beginning that after Washington’s inauguration, the president and Congress went to Trinity Episcopal Church for a religious service.

What they did cohesively as a group was not particularly indicative as to what they did collectively as a governing body.

The prism that I view this issue through is the fact that the original pilgrims to this country were escaping from religious persecution and after having arrived here invoked laws more stringent than they fled from.

Examples:

uncp.edu/home/canada/work/allam/16071783/religion.htm

And while I am not necessarily a fan of “wiki”…this one contains some facts:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion_in_the_United_States

loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01-2.html

The greater question this issue begs is this: If religion is to be incorporated into the state, which will it be? Will it be Jews, Catholics, Evangelicals, Baptists, Episcopalians, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Buddhist, Rastafarians, New Age Movement…etc…

Because it would be impossible to achieve a quorum of agreement as to which one…its best to keep it separate, and the safest to hold.

 

[KingAlfred]

“When people cry “Separation of church and state!”, you say:”

Sure…but America’s culture is predominantly Christian, which is reflected in government, by way of *democracy. *

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

If you had actually read the series of letters, then you would see this is not the case at all. The discussion was in regards to a friend asking him if our new country would establish a state religion like the Church of England and Mr. Jefferson believed that the state and church should remain seperate when it comes to endorsement.

I resent your accusation that I have not read his letter when I have. Jefferson believed that religion was a personal matter that government had no business in dabbling in. This is my whole point.

And to GodIsWithUs, I wouldn’t know, since I am pro-life.

The point isn’t whether historically The United States was Christian or what the founding fathers intended. This is a democracy, and one of the fundamental keys to a successful democracy is safeguards against the persecution or marginalization of minorities.

Put simply, our nation is a nation of individuals that contribute to government. Everyone is expected to make these contributions regardless of their religious affiliation, so how could a government pass a law pertaining to religion?

 

[Genesis315]

I reply, “…but never separate truth and goodness from state!”