Why secularism is not merely separating Church and State

[jonathan_hili]

Hi all.

I was struck today by fundamental difference between a secular society and one which advocates a separation of Church and State. This came to me today as I attended my girlfriend’s politics class, where theocracies were being discussed. (Interestingly, as an aside, there seemed to be immense hostility towards Christianity by the lecturer and most of the students. In fact, whenever Muslim acts of violence or intolerance came up, someone seemed to quickly chip in and state that Christianity was just as bad, if not worse.)

It seems to me that a society that holds to a genuine separation of Church and State can still be a very religious society because the separation is purely on a political level, and perhaps the States are an example of this. A secular society, on the other hand, like France, seems to want to prohibit most forms of public religious expression.

What do you think?

 

[TarkanAttila]

You, friend, are talking about the difference between the American 1st Amendment and the French laicite. And I agree with you on it, except that I do not believe you can really prevent politics from being influenced by religion, anymore than you can prevent politics from being affected by individual consciences.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I agree. Society is made up of individuals, and the only way to have a truly secular society and polity is to expect people to radically separate their lives.

I would say that the Catholic politician who signs in abortion laws under the mantle of “representative of the people” is damning his soul just as the Commandant at Belsen who signs an order for exterminating Jews under the mantle of “representative of the Reich” is damning his.

 

[revert_jen]

I have often thought of that as the difference between “freedom of religion” and “freedom from religion.” In the US it is supposed to be the first, but we are rapidly moving toward the second.

It used to be about the freedom of religious expression, and it appears to be turning into the freedom to avoid having one’s sight offended by religious expression (especially if it is Christian).

Generally, it seems to be atheists, not members of non-Christian religions, who seem to be offended by any reminder that a lot of Americans are Christian.

Also, we have a president who is trying to change the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof” that is in the Constitution into mere “freedom of worship.” Frankly, if all of your religious expression is happening in church, you’re not doing it right.

–Jen

 

[Spencerian]

Hi all.

I was struck today by fundamental difference between a secular society and one which advocates a separation of Church and State. This came to me today as I attended my girlfriend’s politics class, where theocracies were being discussed. (Interestingly, as an aside, there seemed to be immense hostility towards Christianity by the lecturer and most of the students. In fact, whenever Muslim acts of violence or intolerance came up, someone seemed to quickly chip in and state that Christianity was just as bad, if not worse.)

It seems to me that a society that holds to a genuine separation of Church and State can still be a very religious society because the separation is purely on a political level, and perhaps the States are an example of this. A secular society, on the other hand, like France, seems to want to prohibit most forms of public religious expression.

What do you think?

The modern concept of separation of church and state by the Founding Fathers came from their lives in England, where the Church was also the State (the Anglican Church). They didn’t oppose the Church but a government wielding and abusing the power of a church.

If you want to twink the class a bit, have them chew on this.

Pope Gelasius I (492-496)…a *pope *was the earliest person to appreciate the roles that government should do to respect the teachings of the church, but for the church to respect the temporal authority of the government: The “Two Swords” theory. The text can be found here. Another source can be found here.

The goal, in both ancient and modern times, is for religion and government to work together and cooperatively, not to exorcise or exercise one over the other, which is not separation but discrimination. The “wall of Separation of Church and State” was supported by the Founding Fathers (Jefferson, in particular) to protect religion from the State, not the other way around.

That class could be asked if anyone has those “Coexist” bumper stickers on their car. If they support State over religion in terms of separation, suggest that their bumper sticker is more than a bit hypocritical, since co-existence is needed with the State as well as with other religions.

 

[jonathan_hili]

That class could be asked if anyone has those “Coexist” bumper stickers on their car. If they support State over religion in terms of separation, suggest that their bumper sticker is more than a bit hypocritical, since co-existence is needed with the State as well as with other religions.

Most of the class has about as much knowledge of Christian history or faith as a mouse does of that shiny bit of metal under the cheese. It doesn’t stop them from making wild and accusatory judgements, though.

 

[Oxford_Cleric]

I have often thought of that as the difference between “freedom of religion” and “freedom from religion.” In the US it is supposed to be the first, but we are rapidly moving toward the second.

It used to be about the freedom of religious expression, and it appears to be turning into the freedom to avoid having one’s sight offended by religious expression (especially if it is Christian).

Generally, it seems to be atheists, not members of non-Christian religions, who seem to be offended by any reminder that a lot of Americans are Christian.

Also, we have a president who is trying to change the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof” that is in the Constitution into mere “freedom of worship.” Frankly, if all of your religious expression is happening in church, you’re not doing it right.

–Jen

This.

 

[Oxford_Cleric]

Most of the class has about as much knowledge of Christian history or faith as a mouse does of that shiny bit of metal under the cheese. It doesn’t stop them from making wild and accusatory judgements, though.

This here too.

 

[bsroufek]

In my view of the nations these days, secularism seems to be a religion in its own right, an
atheism and a forced legalization of anti-God laws. It’s no better than atheism.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Hi all.

I was struck today by fundamental difference between a secular society and one which advocates a separation of Church and State. This came to me today as I attended my girlfriend’s politics class, where theocracies were being discussed. (Interestingly, as an aside, there seemed to be immense hostility towards Christianity by the lecturer and most of the students. In fact, whenever Muslim acts of violence or intolerance came up, someone seemed to quickly chip in and state that Christianity was just as bad, if not worse.)

It seems to me that a society that holds to a genuine separation of Church and State can still be a very religious society because the separation is purely on a political level, and perhaps the States are an example of this. A secular society, on the other hand, like France, seems to want to prohibit most forms of public religious expression.

What do you think?

A society that has a separation of Church and state can still be religious if there is a plurality of religions in the state. This would be like the United States of America. In a state with only one majority religion, if the Church and state are separated, it isn’t likely that the population will be religious, since the major religion is in effect being rejected by society, since it refuses to acknowledge it as right.

 

[mdiaz1328]

Hi all.

I was struck today by fundamental difference between a secular society and one which advocates a separation of Church and State. This came to me today as I attended my girlfriend’s politics class, where theocracies were being discussed. (Interestingly, as an aside, there seemed to be immense hostility towards Christianity by the lecturer and most of the students. In fact, whenever Muslim acts of violence or intolerance came up, someone seemed to quickly chip in and state that Christianity was just as bad, if not worse.)

It seems to me that a society that holds to a genuine separation of Church and State can still be a very religious society because the separation is purely on a political level, and perhaps the States are an example of this. A secular society, on the other hand, like France, seems to want to prohibit most forms of public religious expression.

What do you think?

You cannot separate politics and religion. Many Christians fall into that trap.

Simply put: if you allow the pagans to write the laws, what kind of laws will you get ?

Every year, Freedom House, a secular organization, conducts a survey to analyze the situation of democracy and human rights across the globe. Year after year, it concludes that the most rights-based and democratic nations are the majority Christian ones. On the other hand, Islam and Marxism, the latter a secular religion, seem to offer the most serious obstacles for the realization of democracy and human rights. In fact, the denial of the broadest range of basic human rights comes precisely from Marxist and majority-Muslim countries. The worst violators of human rights are Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, and the one-party Marxist regimes of Cuba and North Korea

Let’s look at some laws that have been instituted by the Christians and then you tell me if Christians should stay out of politics:

1. Slavery. The anti-slavery campaign began in England by Christians and then it made it’s way to the United States. Would you rather that we still have slavery on the books ?
2. Pedophilia – Prior to Christianity, pedophilia was accepted. Would you rather we still allow this horrible practice in our society ?
3. Individual rights – During the Roman period, people had no individual rights. In fact, they had no concept of individual rights. So if you like Privacy, thank Christianity.

In the more modern times; in declaring the equality of all human souls in the sight of God, Christianity compelled the kings of England to recognize the supremacy of the divine law over their arbitrary will.

The Christian faith provided to the people of England a status libertatis (state of liberty) which rested on the Christian presumption that God’s law always works for the good of society. With their conversion to Christianity, the kings of England would no longer possess an arbitrary power over the life and property of individuals, changing the basic laws of the kingdom at pleasure.

These same principles are at work here in the United States. or should I say “were”.

How different would our lives be here in the United States if it were not for laws instituted by Christians ?

God bless you and please, help to push Christian based laws into the books by calling your legislators.

 

[edwest2]

It’s true. Christians can’t be non-Christians in public. We must not remain silent. When we go into the voting booth, we vote for what we want just like everybody else. However, keep in mind that the agents of diversity, tolerance and inclusiveness often echo the words of this non-book review on amazon.com: “Keep your Bible out of my government.”

The pluralists appear to be excluding a portion of the population.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tcjjmcf]

Can someone offer a definition of “religion”? Is it a belief in the supernatural or a belief in a set of dogma that has no empirical basis? If it’s the former, then Atheism is not a religion, if it is the latter, it is. My impression is that most people would define “religion” as a belief in a supernatural power. Atheism would then fall into the classification of a philosophy, much akin to Naturalism, both logically flawed, but not religions.