SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

[ClayBarham]

This means: Separation of Morality and State. Religion co-opted morality when Moses gave us the Ten Commandments and Jesus the Golden Rule, the foundation of our laws. This new idea of separation makes it illegal for any taxpayer-funded agency to include morality as part of its function. Imagine, going to jail because you did not kill someone. How about being sued by the ACLU because you treated someone as you would want them to treat you? Who turned America upside down? Even if I were an atheist, how could I take issue with common decency and morality? However, it cannot be, because there can now be no religion or morality associated with anything in the public square.

[Labrocca]

I don't understand the point of your rant.

[wonder cow]

I don't understand the point of your rant.

I get the gist of what he is saying.

This means: Separation of Morality and State

No.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

The constitution mentions religion, not morality.

when Moses gave us the Ten Commandments

The law and the prophets were until John Luke 16:16

This new idea of separation makes it illegal for any taxpayer-funded agency to include morality as part of its function.

#1 It's not new:

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God's Matthew 22:21

#2 No such prohibition against 'morality', but against religion.

Why do people have such a difficult time grasping this simple concept?

I pay taxes and I'm Baptist.

You pay taxes and you're Catholic (for example).

Why should either one of us be able to take the public money we have both contributed to and express our religious beliefs through it to the detriment of the other?

And ClayBarham, you express some individualism ideas in one other post. Can you not see the drastic inconsistency of what you advocate in this post with the basic tenants of individualism?

State sponsored religion is about as collectivist as you can get.

However, it cannot be, because there can now be no religion or morality associated with anything in the public square.

One is free to express their religion in public. One is not free to spend government funds on that expression.

[Buck Laser]

Well done, Wonder Cow!

[wonder cow]

Well done, Wonder Cow!

Thanks Buck. :)

[Red Dragon]

Religion does not always equal morality in this world. And not to mention there are other sources of morality besides religion. Like the community, culture, philosophy, role models, your family, etcetera. Besides an absence of faith does not make one evil or immoral, as some would have us think. Besides there's a reason we have a separation between Church and State, it's so they don't become intertwined. And before some one says America is a Christian country I have this too say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's taken directly from the First amendment, now before some one says, "oh it says the government can't prohibit religion and the separation of church and state is prohibition of religion". It's not okay you can worship what ever god or gods you please just as long as you don't try and implement them into state or national law or use the states money to support your religion.

[Mayberry]

Religion does not always equal morality in this world This is true to an extent. It also depends on one's definition of morality.

[ClayBarham]

Our nation's Founders and the people at that time, distrusted both the church and the state. They wanted no absolutism, no rule from the whig or the purple. The Calvanists who, after they abandoned their theocratic tendencies, also pursued the idea that governance is not absolute, either from the state or a church, but from God. However, when ACLU types want a separation, it is not for the same reason. They want a supreme, absolute governance, only from the state. The morality reflected in the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule get in the way. That morality, affecting individuals, gets in the way of a relativism which allows the average folks to accept absolute power by the state, as it deprives them of the teachings that make them personally responsible for their own behavior. It has nothing to do with an established church, but a morality which may have been passed on by a church, at least by our Christian founding.

[Mayberry]

Well stated Clay.

[Buck Laser]

Our nation's Founders and the people at that time, distrusted both the church and the state. They wanted no absolutism, no rule from the whig or the purple. The Calvanists who, after they abandoned their theocratic tendencies, also pursued the idea that governance is not absolute, either from the state or a church, but from God. However, when ACLU types want a separation, it is not for the same reason. They want a supreme, absolute governance, only from the state. The morality reflected in the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule get in the way. That morality, affecting individuals, gets in the way of a relativism which allows the average folks to accept absolute power by the state, as it deprives them of the teachings that make them personally responsible for their own behavior. It has nothing to do with an established church, but a morality which may have been passed on by a church, at least by our Christian founding.

Our Christian founding, huh? Geez, I don't know how many times this argument has been trotted out, but it just doesn't work. The founders, all of them, were products of the Enlightenment of the 17th century. Their views of God were deistic, holding that God's governance took place through the laws of nature as they envisioned them. They were extremely wary of dogma because they lived in a time when most scientific dogma was being overturned as people engaged in massive experiment, and they certainly did NOT want to construct a government that would be subject to the seismic shocks that had been inflicted on the European continent by the wars over religion. At the times the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were being drafter, there was tremendous ferment in American religion. Many of the states, perhaps most notably Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Maryland had been created as havens for people of a particular faith. The southern colonies were mostly Church of England, and tied to the royal establishment more tightly than the northern colonies.

In this context, the separation of church and state was necessary for the possibility of a United States. But Catholics have been campaigning for as long as I can remember for federal aid to Catholic education, and in fairly recent years, radical protestant groups have developed a "dominionist" theology which actually advocates a theocracy in America. Sadly, the most obvious practitioners of this form of Christianity have usually carried a lot of exclusionary baggage, including vicious racism and rigid opposition to other points of view. The "Christian Identity" movement is typical of this mindset.

The ACLU is hardly the only organization that's stood in opposition to establishment--Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been fighting this battle since my undergraduate days, which ended a very long time ago. I'm not willing to accept a summary opinion from enthusiasts for establishing religion until I know where they're coming from and what their motives are.

Of any conceivable form of government, a theocracy, however it's realized is absolutely the worst.

[ClayBarham]

If you are going to equate morality and religion as the same, then when you want separation you want to dump on morality. Morality implies some inner-guiding principle for people's behavior, as individuals. If you believe that inner-guiding principle is wrong and should be eliminated from the way people live, you will be either back in the dark ages or expecting the absolute guidance of an all-powerful government to define right and wrong behavior. As for me, I admire the way America was founded and how it differs from the rest of the world. Further, I admire that it, with 5% of the world's population has control of 25% of the world's wealth, and that came about not by being the kind of bully you liberals like to make us out to be.

[wonder cow]

If you are going to equate morality and religion as the same, then when you want separation you want to dump on morality.

From what I have read, you are the one making bizarre arguments about the relationship between religion and morality.

Furthermore, your attack on the "liberal" boogy monster is misguided. Liberals are not trying to eliminate morality from our laws. Most are simply seeking to do exactly the same thing conservatives try to do. That is, codify their own version of morality.

[ClayBarham]

The world has known two significant revolutions altering the way people are viewed by themselves and the few elites who ruled them. First, the birth, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus, and the second 1600 years later with the founding of New England. Why significant? Someone taught people they were individuals and answered only to God, not the king or high priest. In America, being unleashed from the monarch's control, they used their values, interests, skills, talents and aspirations to carve out a new beginning and, by improving themselves, improved their communities, not the reverse. Now, this kind of thing may be objectionable to you ACLU-types, but it is historically factual. No one else bothered to whisper in anyone's ear that they could be independent and responsible for themselves, in fact, just the opposite was the case...even up until today when those promoting the case of servitude to community (its leaders) try to make us believe "It Takes a Village." As to being taught the ideas of Jesus does not make the establishment of a church necessary. We don't need priests telling us or leading us. We can do it ourselves. I'll take the Bible over Das Kapital anyday, and I do not have allegiance to any church institution.

[wonder cow]

two significant revolutions

You have to be joking. Just two, huh?

First, the birth, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus

Leave my Jesus out of politics, sir. He had a much higher calling than political nonsense, and especially the ignorant stupor of current political thought that now dominates the American political culture.

and the second 1600 years later with the founding of New England. Why significant? Someone taught people they were individuals and answered only to God

Yes. They answered only to God. And to the overbearing, dogmatic, intolerant little theocracies that made up their local government. You know, like they had in Salem.

[Buck Laser]

Wonder Cow, your questions to Barham are well-put, but I fear he won't really understand. He's got the strangest interpretation of moral or ethical history I ever saw in my life. It seems to me to be a kind of willful ignorance.

To suggest that Jesus was some kind of moral pioneer is simply to misread the Bible in the the grossest possible fashion. NONE of Jesus's moral teachings broke any essential new ground from the Jewish faith. Every single bit of his moral teaching was foreshadowed, in one way or another, in the Old Testament. And Barham apparently fails to recognize how moral concepts evolved (and that word is used intentionally) throughout the period of time covered in the OT. But even at the beginning, in the Pentateuch, the ancient and underlying law of hospitality to the stranger is present in the Bible. What changes is the expansion of the idea of the stranger to the neighbor. For Barham's sake, here's the key OT reference: Micah 6:8

That Barham should latch onto the settlement of New England as some kind of dividing point in history may be one of the silliest things I've EVER seen. The Puritans who went to the Plymouth colony were as prickly as the Puritans in England who started the English Civil War. In place of abusing the Church of England folk, they abused and misused the native Americans. While the C of E certainly needed some reform in those days, about all the Puritans did was dress funny, take silly names (cf "Obedience," "Diligence," etc.). Some of the Puritans no doubt made a bit of a contribution to the enlightenment, but I'm pretty sure it was [u]in reaction[/b] to their Puritan behavior, not as a result of it.

I'm sorry. Barham has some interesting ideas, but he's made the inexcusable mistake of cooking up what HE thinks is important, then picking and choosing history for a few points to support his preconceptions. Because he's fairly articulate, I'm afraid people may get him confused with someone who has a thorough grasp of history. And it's not even so much that MY interpretation of history is correct--a REAL historian could probably poke big holes in my historical understanding--but that his grasp is so partial that no honest thinking informed person could buy into it. But a dupe certainly could.:(

[ClayBarham]

I guess I must apologize, then. I thought Jesus taught that each us us is responsible to God for the way we act and think, making us more personally responsible for ourselves, instead of the community and the magistrate or priest. I should get on my knees and pray that we get back to a time when kings ruled and the people did what they were told. I must be reading the wrong bible and I should certainly get hold of whatever Marxist history books you've been reading. I should also apologize for being upbeat, positive, seeing every person as potentially good and great, if they get on a good path as individuals, all that brainless right-wing stuff, right? You must lead a very dismal life! I will continue with my stupid smile and enjoy what God has given us, and apologize for using that non-PC three letter word. Report me to the ACLU.

[Buck Laser]

I guess I must apologize, then. I thought Jesus taught that each us us is responsible to God for the way we act and think, making us more personally responsible for ourselves, instead of the community and the magistrate or priest. I should get on my knees and pray that we get back to a time when kings ruled and the people did what they were told. I must be reading the wrong bible and I should certainly get hold of whatever Marxist history books you've been reading. I should also apologize for being upbeat, positive, seeing every person as potentially good and great, if they get on a good path as individuals, all that brainless right-wing stuff, right? You must lead a very dismal life! I will continue with my stupid smile and enjoy what God has given us, and apologize for using that non-PC three letter word. Report me to the ACLU.


Yes, you do need to apologize. There is a difference between morality and religion, and you've strayed right into it. For your information, I'm a retired clergyman in the United Methodist Church, and I've spent a fairly long lifetime in study of the bible and the history of the church. I'm well aware of the Marxist interpretation of history, but you apparently aren't. I suppose you call "Marxist" whatever you disagree with or fail to understand. But that's your problem, not mine.

I have not accused you of brainlessness, and have never used any of the buzz words you seem to love. However, if you want to play the victim, be my guest.

[underdawg]

There was an obvious reason for our founding fathers adopting the separation of church and state. At the time the constitution was being written each of the different colonies had adopted different versions of Christianity. There were the Quakers, the Puritans, the Methodists, and whatever else. In order for the individual colonies to come together as a new nation they agreed not to adopt any one religion or belief so that each state could keep its own individuality. The people of different faiths came to this country to practice their own faith without having a government persecute them for not abiding by the state run religion.

Now here we are a little over 200 years later, and some of us would like to see a blending of religion and state. It was definitely NOT what out founding fathers wanted. Yes, most of them had religious faith, but they certainly didn't want the state interfering in their private affairs.

I am also glad that The Golden Rule was brought up. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That one statement seems to encompass the heart of fairness and tolerance of cultures, and people who act and believe differently than you do. Tolerance is not something Evangelical Christains are known for. The Golden Rule is not something specific to Christianity, it is found universally in every culture. Live and let live. It seems to be something practiced more by Liberals these days than Christians.

[Oedipus Rex]

There was an obvious reason for our founding fathers adopting the separation of church and state.



I more or less agree with your POV but let's use accurate terminology when referring to the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Here's an example of what I'm talking about...

"There was an obvious reason for our founding fathers adopting the separation of church and state."

It should read...

"There was an obvious reason for our founding fathers adopting the separation of state from church."



Thanks!

[underdawg]

Hey Thanks, that does sound better.

[Oedipus Rex]

No problem. Keep up the good fight!


Rex

[wonder cow]

I thought Jesus taught that each us is responsible to God for the way we act and think

Yes. Uhmm, so? And try to keep in mind that Jesus, as God in the flesh, was teaching the truth of God as it had always been.

Didn’t King David say, about his treachery in killing his lover’s husband, that his sin was against God and not man? I would think this is pretty much clear evidence that the idea each individual is responsible to God is not a new idea with Christ’s ministry on earth.

It’s almost as if your statement is directed at Catholicism. Of course, that would be absurd. You could be talking about a Jewish priest, I suppose, but then I would question your understanding of Judaism. Although I don’t claim to be an expert myself, repentance was sought directly from God and not vicariously through a Rabbi. And ancient Jewish society is not really noted for oppression of the individual, so I have to say one of the two of us is confused.

making us more personally responsible for ourselves, instead of the community

Have you read the New Testament? Ever?

Jesus is very big on responsibility to the community and others.

Anyway, I would say that Adam Smith, John Locke were bigger influences on the political ideas of our founders than Christ.

Again, I find it disturbing that you wish to pull Christ into the murk and mire of political ideology.

[ClayBarham]

What influenced our Founders was life as it developed in America from the 1600's. They may have been learned people, but they saw how life evolved in a land without kings and rulers, what people could do pursuing their own legitimate self-interests, and how well the communities progressed as a result, and all of that fashioned their programs. Locke and those folks did not write the charters and the rules. No europeans took a hand in how America was founded. Stop trying to find our roots in some arcane temple far from America, and judge by what free men and women did here. The Declaration of Independence was not written by some Frenchman or African scholar. It was a letter describing the injustices of King and Parliament toward free Englshmen in America, and said we wanted no more of it. Was it a reflection of Christianity? To the extent that Christianity was the dominant ideology of Americans at the time, yes. Did Jesus endear himself to men because he suggested everyone do as the Rabbi and the Priest and the Mullah (who had yet to arrive) said, that they were offspring of a religious community, or because he told them they were to behave for and pursue a good relationship with Him and God as individuals?

[wonder cow]

Stop trying to find our roots in some arcane temple far from America

Did you not try to argue Christ's influence? Well, I guess you could be Mormon.

No europeans took a hand in how America was founded.

Thomas Paine.

Maybe you should not write books, but read a few.

The Declaration of Independence was not written by some Frenchman or African scholar.

Influenced by other similar Declarations of Independence, like the Dutch declaration.

And of course many of the ideas and phraseology is taken directly from John Locke, an English philosopher.

Did Jesus endear himself to men because he suggested everyone do as the Rabbi and the Priest and the Mullah (who had yet to arrive) said, that they were offspring of a religious community, or because he told them they were to behave for and pursue a good relationship with Him and God as individuals?

Jesus did not endear himself to people by the establishment of a political ideology.

[Buck Laser]

I wonder if this ClayBarham is a throwback to the Know-Nothings of the 19th century? I haven't heard nativisim raise its scruffy head since the early days of the 20th Century, when the Ku Klux Klan was in vogue. I'm not a French-speaker, but it seems to me that Clay may be a victim of the idee fixe.

I guess I can understand how one gets caught up in that kind of obsession: in my studies of church history, I was fascinated by the various heresies that popped up during the first three centuries of christendom. Barham is clearly expressing a view of this nation's history actually espoused only by a very tiny minority. Certainly adherents to his strange philosophy must constitute even less than the one half of one percent Barham refers to in another thread. And while my training in economics is a bit spotty, I think I'd have heard of physiocrats before if they'd been an important group. But it does seem strange to take a bunch of FRENCH economists obviously strongly influenced by French romanticism.

But I guess Clay is evidence that people can convince themselves to believe just about anything. Me, I believe I'll have another beer.

[ClayBarham]

A beer? Good idea. You might see some truth in the foam. I'm sure you two guys have your library of anti-America books to draw from, Marx this and Marx that, but I study a lot of the older history books that I'm sure you would believe wrong. I suppose the more modern versions reflect the more modern thinking. Perhaps Shaka-Zulu had a hand in writing our Constitution? We sure don't want to credit any Americas, if it is a half-way decent document, which I assume from your vantage point it is not. Enjoy your Marxist views.

[Buck Laser]

A beer? Good idea. You might see some truth in the foam. I'm sure you two guys have your library of anti-America books to draw from, Marx this and Marx that, but I study a lot of the older history books that I'm sure you would believe wrong. I suppose the more modern versions reflect the more modern thinking. Perhaps Shaka-Zulu had a hand in writing our Constitution? We sure don't want to credit any Americas, if it is a half-way decent document, which I assume from your vantage point it is not. Enjoy your Marxist views.


You're one hilarious dude, Clay! How much American history did you actually study? I have this mental image of you living in a refrigerator box with a sign over it that says "People are no damn good."

Fact is that you're the first nativist I ever met. Do you mind if I show you to some of my friends?

But let me see if I have this straight. You're telling us that the only two worthwhile ideologies came from Jesus and the American Puritans? All the rest is Marxism?

[ClayBarham]

Ho Hum.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz