Sponsor |  Ewtn2000 | Oct 26, 2007 5:06am | | ...and if there really was a separation of church and state in the Constitution, I would tend to agree... |
|
| 
|  eat | Oct 26, 2007 10:37am | "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
That is the Establishment Clause, the first part of the First Amendment. While the word "church" does not appear there, it is most certainly implied. The word "church" has been linked to the word "religion" for quite a long time, and it seems disingenuous to try to loosen the semantic bond that relates them. "Church" does not equal "religion", but the words have strong similarity.
That Christianity had an immense influence in the foundation of America is undeniable. But what does that statement even mean? The influence of Christianity in early America is a direct continuation of Christianity in Europe, where, from around the time that Peter went to Rome, that religion was a dominant framework used to legitimize laws, wars, and a myriad of other aspects of civilization.
Note the word "religion" in the previous sentence. Unless one thinks that Christianity is not a religion, the placement of that word probably shouldn't bring up any objections. To people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, "church" meant the clerical organization that used religious sources, like the Bible, divine revelation through prayer, etc., as the main foundations of their law.
The relationship between secular and religious law is complex. At best, any discussion of that here will likely be a reiteration of things said by extremely knowledgeable people who came before us. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | usmjam | Oct 26, 2007 11:00am | The 'separation' is having no government influence on anyone's exercise of their religious and moral beliefs. Thomas Jefferson's letter where he used that phrase was to assure certain church people that the government was not going to interfere with them. The establishment of any official religion or church is strictly prohibited. But allowing people to express their beliefs and to be guided by said beliefs is a central right of the "free exercise thereof".
What Romans 13 and other parts of the bible tells Christians is that we are to submit to secular authorities up to the point that our lives or our obedience to God's laws are in jeopardy. As this nation moves away from the times of basing laws on the idea that our basic rights are "endowed by their creator" Christians must reflect on how far they will go in support of a government that operates outside the moral boundaries of what Christians believe to be God's word and law. This thread is not so much considering a rehash of the church & state argument. If anything its a discussion on the fact that the government is indeed moving away from the "immense influence in the foundation of America". The separation of church & state issue is now becoming an anti-Christian campaign that is winning. Therefore, how should we Christians deal with it, or should we deal with it at all? |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | Oct 26, 2007 11:10am | | Ah the Establishment Clause is way different then the separation of Church and State. Different animals. And yes, that clause does say that the Federal Government cannot establish one particular religion as England did. They were trying to get away from what England was doing and so they wanted to make sure the the Federal Government didn't say we all needed to become a certain religious member to enjoy full benefits. It did not ever say that the two should always and at all cost be separated. If they did, why even mention the word God in the Declaration? |
|
|
Sponsor | | usmjam | Oct 26, 2007 11:20am | The halls of Congress used to be the place for Sunday religious services during the time of Jefferson. His was not a classic Christian belief, to say the least. Yet he knew that religious freedom meant to allow the free exercise thereof anywhere, including in the very halls of congress at that time.
Yet, I'm saying we Christians should look at the reality that this nation is moving away from that ideal. The posturing of the current administration and the "Religious Right" notwithstanding, this nation seems bent on moving away from free exercise of Christianity. As a backlash it may instead embrace some quasi-religious agenda of questionable neo-con "Christians". Either way, Christian beliefs will be either outlawed or forced to accept a type of government sanctioned religion. Either choice is unacceptable IMO.
EWTN, lets say we Christians agree that the nation was founded in many respects on Christian principles. From your posts it seems you and I agree that the nation is moving away from that ideal. Eat's "separation of church & state" is becoming the new reality. My question then is, what now my brother? |
|
|
| | eat | Oct 27, 2007 11:55am | 34. It did not ever say that the two should always and at all cost be separated.
Agreed. However, the Establishment Clause didn't explicitly say that they shouldn't be separated always and at all cost, either. The language of the Establishment Clause is non-specific. It doesn't say "Congress shall not establish a national church and mandate membership among all American citizens and force them to pay tithes, or else". Nor does it say "Congress shall take pains to expunge every reference to religion within the federal government." Both interpretations seem strict and likely to rankle the skin of large populations of Americans.
It may seem unfounded and ironic to Christians, but many atheists also feel persecuted by the government. While many Christians interpret the cessation of prayer in public schools as anti-Christian, many atheists view the addition of the phrase "In God We Trust" onto American currency as an alarming shift towards Christian theocracy. American Christians feel that government is snuffing out the candle of religion that they view America as being founded on. American atheists feel that government is using that candle of religion to burn down the barn. Both have cogent historical arguments to support their respective cases. Quotes can be mined from the same Founding Father to support both sides of the argument. What both sides seem to be missing is that the Founding Fathers were not cut-and-dry ideologues for one side of the argument on whether church and state should be separated, but rather politicians who often made politically expedient statements that reflected the wide range of American opinions on the subject.
The best answer to the question of church-state separationism is not "yes" or "no"; it is "how much?". Answering "yes" can lead us to Communist-style oppression of religion. Answering "no" can lead us to theocratic-style oppression of non-religion. An informed and workable solution will probably fall somewhere on the continuum of religion's involvement in government. And, in accordance with the language of the First Amendment, I would argue that the most constitutionally sound region that decision could fall would be towards the side of individual religion and communal government being more separated than not. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | Oct 28, 2007 4:29pm | I would disagree with you. As we know, most of colonies established, did have there own established church, and as states those churches continued. I think the founding fathers and those that followed them would know that the type of government that was form allowed those to exist hand in hand.
As for more atheist feelings persecuted, it's like a student signing up for an algebra class in college and then complaining that the actually require him to work and do algebra when he is better suited in geometry. From the words of the Mayflower Compact to the Declaration, trust in God has been there. If those who know come here to share in what was founded and force those same principles, that help this country flourish, to be change is what I argue against.
Again I tell you the same as I tell others when I discuss Bible Apologetics, you can take out singles verses to match your needs, but when you take them as a whole, then and only then do you see a better picture of what was happening in that period.
"A Nation that does not remember what it was yesterday, doesn't know what it is today or what it's trying to do." |
|
| 
| | 3DJelly | Oct 31, 2007 3:08pm | Eat must be a Buddhist since he seems to support the "middle way".
Joke aside, while I agree compromise is almost always the best solution, it seems to me it isn't really an issue at all. I'm not American, so maybe I'm not close enough to the issues to say, but it seems the ones that I do hear about are all superficial. Examples:
The school prayer thing shouldn't be an issue. Jesus himself warned us about praying at street corners.
The "In God We Trust" thing. Does that have any actual application? (If so, I'd like to know what it is, thanks.)
Another I can think of off the top of my head is that incident about the Ten Commandments statue in an Alabama courthouse. I don't see how a statue actually affects the courthouse's activities one way or other. Personally, I think it's silly that any politician or judge would insist on keeping it there since, in a normal country, that would be considered career suicide, not an actual social or political issue. Either way, it shouldn't have been an issue of freedom of religion for anyone.
My point is, none of this is "oppression" by any definition I'm aware of. The real oppression is being done by individual to individual. Political and governmental actors simply take stances to gain public support. Early in the thread, lesoldham and I mentioned a few countries where actual religious oppression takes place.
As for civil disobedience, I'm still not convinced that it's warranted for Christians unless the gospel cannot be spread without it (the underground churches in China, for instance). Oppression or even our own survival has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
| | eat | Nov 2, 2007 8:38pm | 38: Many discussions of Christianity are necessarily "superficial" in relation to Christianity in the rest of the world. I don't think anyone is arguing that the religiously fueled turmoil throughout the world is comparable in degree to religious disputes in America. What I would argue is that they are comparable in principle - the players and settings are different, but the same unsettling motifs appear.
Seemingly innocuous phrases and policies like "In God We Trust" or taking prayer out of schools are not concrete governmental actions like building roads, devolving centralized power, or reforming the various services that government provides. Their effect tends to not be immediate or, as it seems, readily apparent to many as something like a policy to censor media, public expression, imprisonment of the religious/non-religious for their beliefs, etc. Those concrete actions are loud noises that cause everyone's head to turn and see what's going on. More "superficial" things like removing references to the Ten Commandments are noises of a different frequency in the political arena that perk the ears of those inclined towards somewhat paranoic persecution complexes. Then again, what one person calls a mildly paranoic obsession (or, insert a psychologically pigeon-holing phrase of your choice) another may call due diligence.
To insert and delete elements of religion from the public sphere is to rearrange the symbols that many people attach significant psychological value to. They (and their lack) form a significant part of the framework through which many would say we conduct our personal, regional, and national affairs. |
|
|
| | 3DJelly | Nov 3, 2007 5:41am | | That's an interesting idea, Eat. Tell us more about this "framework". How does it influence our lives in such a way that we percieve these symbols as significant? Should Christians also let these symbols bother us? |
| |
| |
Apologetics → Discussion