Separation of Chuch and State does not apply to....

Hey TC I can consider that when Power is in the hands of more the likelihood of abuse is less but most religions do not work that way, as a result an
inherent conflicts exist with respect to the issue
of God and Country.

I have always made it very clear how I feel about the Guardian periodical in this case there is a reference to an encyclical to comfort the new age philosophy.

Main Entry: [2]encyclical
Function: noun
Date: 1837
: an encyclical letter; specifically : a papal letter to the bishops of the church as a whole or to those in one country

Pronunciation Key

� 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

Beyond my personal impressions as a curio this does bring into consideration several issues.

Amongst them is the potential problems a system whose authority to react is decentralized with one which is not.

To all concerned I prepared the initial post not to act as a repository for how bad the Christian church is, rather my focus is on the matter of separation of church and State.

Meaning this is really not about any particular faith hence the reason I posted multiple orientations to the problem.

To all Any thoughts?

Well..regardless of a seperation of church and state, it is also the purpose of the State to support the spiritual well-being of the populace, as the founding fathers intended.

They did not intend for religious establishments to be shunned and torn down by the State.

Where's the sense in, "well...to make sure we don't support any religion, we'll just destroy all religion."

Excellent point, FM.

Toltec, an excellent point as well, religions can be dangerous, as we see it happening throughout the world now. I think Patrick Henry put best. Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." The religions come in the form of our denominations, or sects. Christianity is a relationship with a loving and caring God, Southern Baptist is a denomination, man-made.

An issue that comes to mind freemason is that religions at practically every level compete with each other, so by providing support to one you are negatively affecting others....

Here is a scenario your a professor in a college who is teaching Religion in your class this semester are 15 students each of which is from a different faith, 7 of them are fundamentalist with respect to there system of belief.

Clearly, this is an institution of higher learning, as a result expectations are in place with respect to demeanor and conduct. But it is also clear that if you take the position of favoring any particular belief arguments will start.

This is apparent because the text you are working from. Has already been the brunt of several rather heated discussions due to the way it portrays history and it is the first day.

How would you deal with this knowing the factors you cannot change, is the fact that for the next 3 months these students and you will be attending to this class.

And the fact the book in question cannot be changed at least till next semester due to funding.

I am not disagreeing with the idea that the spiritual well being of the populace is relevant, but as TC has stated and to which I agree religions can be very dangerous.

Will welcome input with regard to how one can address the spiritual needs of a culture without having to address the dangers of religions.

Furthermore, religions can and do conspire.

Not only agaisnt each other but as well agaisnt the
Governments under which they practice.

Any Thoughts?



[Edited on 25-7-2003 by Toltec]

Well the state is already supporting religions and the spiritual well being of the populace, by not taxing Churches.

The state aiding all religions can be done, in many ways...that do not conflict with any one religion.

Religions not paying taxes are fine, the problem which seems apparent is that individuals in power often favor a system of belief (There own). And we find ourselves taking such issues to the Federal Supreme court to get them to stop. In the interim money is exchanged and a religion gain more than is intended within the apices of current intent of Federal law (beyond that they do not have to pay taxes for that money either).

The conspiracy is clear and furthermore the actions of the conspirators who are fully aware that in the end there actions will be overturned is as well clear. That the system allows them to get away with it is as well another issue. This presents the cause and effect for why a problem would exist should the shoe be on the other foot (revelations).

To whit, from the position of the antagonist one can see a cause for concluding that a self fulfilling prophesy exist. What is good for the goose is as good for the gander and lets us not forget and eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.

Would like to hear your response to the above as well as considerations with respect to your second sentence in your recent post.

Any thoughts?

Here is some imformation..........

www.jeremiahproject.com...

www.aclj.org...

As I am lazy.....

The Myth of
the Separation of Church and State

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)

The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.

Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.

Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.

Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)

In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.

There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.

1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.

2. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 243.

3. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.

4. John Witherspoon, "Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men" May 17, 1776; quoted and Cited by Collins, President Witherspoon, I:197-98.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terrific, a link was available with respect to what you posted. In the future would appreciate the following format in this my response.....

This is a compendium called "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church" by Ed and Michael Buckner. I have broken this into 6 parts. The total size of the files is approximately 250K. This is not an ordinary quote list.

All of these quotes have been throughly researched. None are "out of context" or otherwise misleading. For example, the bogus John Adams' quote, "...this would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it ..." is not included.


See link.......

Quotations that Support Separation of Church and State

Any thoughts?

I stand chastised! I usually do not do this. As a matter of fact, rarely if at all. Sorry.

Toltec

.......thoughts.

Well, we can go back and forth and I will agree with TC that in today's world, seperation of church and state means Christians go home and everyone else gets a pass.

If a group of girls want to gather in front of the flag pole and pray they have to go through holy high water to do so. Yet, our kids are taught Humanistic values and are told not to mention their faith beliefs so as not to offend the sensitive...even Satanism is acknowledged in the USA military as a religion.....it is out of whack is it not.

I went to elementary school at a Catholic institution. I was accustomed to God in my studies daily-chapel, the whole nine yards.
I went to secondary and high school in public system. I had to adjust to NO GOD any time, anyplace, any where....and this was a while ago friend...those days were nothing like today.
I didn't post that whole article for kicks, I was hoping those who hate links would just sit and have it to read. The singling out of people who believe the Bible is evident even in our forum at ATS...I rarely, besides the occasional moron posting something about Islam, have seen any other belief system so ridiculed and berated as theose who call themselves Christian......if my perceptions on this seem incorrect, please give me your thoughts.
Thanks

Terrific You know that comment about Buddhism not believing in a God (per say) was a bit shocking, as well was the idea of Taoism being the same very strange.

The US Supreme court actually said that was very sad, because it presented an absolute ignorance over what those systems of belief were all about.

If I was in a battle and the soldier next to me informed me that he was TC at ATS I would have one less problem to think about (honestly).

The US is not the only culture to acknowledge Satanism as a religion by far its not the only military, or for that matter the first. I think a question that is important is
if he saves your life in war does that make you evil?

Myself spent a considerable part of my school age years in Christians Schools (Catholic and Lutheran) some of it was spent in public schools as well, so I do know where you are coming from.

In the military what you are told is that we are all fighting under the eye's of the same God no matter what your religious affiliation is. That essentially, despite the differences presented within text and what are the conclusions of people.

The same God, the one God, made himself known to all cultures. In ways which on the surface seem different but when one looks at the fundamentals is essentially the same.

I am going to stop here and ask for your thoughts, feel free to state anything you feel is relevant.

Originally posted by Toltec
Terrific You know that comment about Buddhism not believing in a God (per say) was a bit shocking, as well was the idea of Taoism being the same very strange.

The US Supreme court actually said that was very sad, because it presented an absolute ignorance over what those systems of belief were all about.

If I was in a battle and the soldier next to me informed me that he was TC at ATS I would have one less problem to think about (honestly).

The US is not the only culture to acknowledge Satanism as a religion by far its not the only military, or for that matter the first. I think a question that is important is
if he saves your life in war does that make you evil?

Myself spent a considerable part of my school age years in Christians Schools (Catholic and Lutheran) some of it was spent in public schools as well, so I do know where you are coming from.

In the military what you are told is that we are all fighting under the eye's of the same God no matter what your religious affiliation is. That essentially, despite the differences presented within text and what are the conclusions of people.

The same God, the one God, made himself known to all cultures. In ways which on the surface seem different but when one looks at the fundamentals is essentially the same.

I am going to stop here and ask for your thoughts, feel free to state anything you feel is relevant.

I suppopse I should have placed a disclaimer on this article since I do not support the whole of it, nor does it necessarily reflect my views........

I will be more succinct:
www.aclj.org...

www.aclj.org...

www.aclj.org...


...also, you greatly misunderstood, or inferred that I would discriminate(?) against a fellow soldier in battle or otherwise.

As one who served with peoples of all faiths, including the two you excerpted from the article, I have to tell you that to me a soldier was a soldier. I didn't care if he worshiped mud puddles in the moonlight- as long as he did his job. I believe in America and the foundations for which it stands: Freedom. Just do not try to trample on my freedoms if they are within the Law.

I welcome your thoughts sincerely.

Nah homeboy, thinking you were like that was the last thing on my mind

I looked at the links you provided and I understand where you are coming from, what our government seems to be doing is imposing a "handicap" and thereby providing the minority and "advantage" they would not have otherwise.

I took the liberty of investing some time in preparing this response, did some surfing, a little research and for the most part decided that this response has a value all to its own. To be honest I assign a certain place in my heart to those who serve this country as soldiers they are the life blood of this nation (in every way).

Lets begin.....

Names Of God
Name
Definition
ELOHIM
�Powerful God�
JEHOVAH
�The Self-Existing One�
ADONAI
�Master�
JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH
�The Lord is There�
JEHOVAH-RAPHA
�The Lord Heals�
JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU
�The Lord is Our Righteousness�
JEHOVAH-JIREH
"The Lord Provides�
JEHOVAH-MELEK
�The Lord is King�
JEHOVAH-NISSI
�The Lord is My Banner�
JEHOVAH-SHALOM
�The Lord is Peace�
JEHOVAH-SABBAOTH
"The Lord of Hosts"
JEHOVAH-MEKADESH
�The Lord Who Sanctifies You�
EL-ELYON
"God Most High"
EL-ROHI
�God My Shepherd�
EL-SHADDAI
�God Almighty�
EL-OLAM
�God Everlasting�
PATER
�Father�

THEOCRACY - A species of government which claims to be immediately directed by God.

Religion, which in former times, frequently associated itself with despotism, to reign, by its power, or under its shadow, has sometimes attempted to reign alone, and this she has called the reign of God, theocracy.
--b--

As is obvious the fist in quotations are definitions of Gods with respect to biblical text to be specific the source was www.my-ebible.com...

The second in respect to the definition of a theocracy www.lectlaw.com...

To whit this conversation would not be complete without a review of Torcaso v. Watkins albeit in this case with a Christian slant....

members.aol.com...

Here is my current point, while there are legal definitions in respect to religion in regard to the term God nothing that I have found to date for all intent and purpose affords Christianity with the copyrights on the term.

Nonetheless, when addressing the above one cannot help but conclude that such a copyright in principal, theory and practice seems to be presented as existing.

The definition for the term Buddha is "Hand of God" which is considered to be taken literally. But from the context of Christian Theology the Buddhist is commoting heresy, idolatry and violating the very tenants of Christian dogma.

This conflict is obvious with respect to the Eastern Hemisphere. In regard to the Western Hemisphere when in comes to protecting our mutual interest, with respect to dying for those interest our military and law enforcement institutions assert the position that this is not an issue to treat as a precedence. Separation of Church and State is what makes our country great in a world where such matters are ignored.



Any thoughts?

Toltec,
I'll take the first sentence at face value.

I think we are now discussing two different points...I 'm not here to argue the Christian monopoly on what God is which, my only point was the one you agreed with in your statement concerning handicaps....

The military was a learning experience for me because that system is nearer to perfect than our civil system because there is absolute tolerance without overt predjudice. We just did not have a reason to discuss this thing, and it was mainly frowned upon. You went to your house of worship and left it there. Duty and Obedience were god.

And yes, I am familiar with most of those many names (Hebrew) for God Almighty.



[Edited on 30-7-2003 by Tyriffic]

OK on to handicaps then......

I think that with respect to how our government has interpreted its role with respect to the issues of religion is to a literal interpretation of the role of a referee.

Look at it this way tomorrow every country in the world says forget all this we are all going to become member states of the United States of America. They all agree to surrender there sovereignty, military and monetary systems and within a year the name is changed to the United States of Earth.

When the next elections occur will the new president be from the former USA? probably not

Will congress of for that matter the senate have enough representatives in it from the former USA to get a vote passed (on its own)? Again no

As our population grows and becomes more diverse. Way to undermine any effort which can have an adverse affect upon a minority become more important.

In the case of separation of church and state a majority of this populations masses are in fact Christian

Any thoughts?

I gather you are suggesting that christianity could be used as a majority opinion to run the World??

I do not think you are...........????


I like your world analogy as it will manifest, I believe, in a different aspect.

I can respect that Tyriffic

Would anyone else like to weigh in on this topic?

[Edited on 30-7-2003 by Toltec]

But I don't think that Christians are quite the major majority you think they are, though decidedly, they are still a majority. And, it is shrinking all the time. Not to mention, in certain areas, it can be an actual minority (say, Chinatown for example).

As the melting pot we proclaim to be...religious tolerance was put before integration of the religious majority...and I'm pretty confident that was the best course. However, it still seeps through. Look at the money in your pocket (which still says "In God We Trust"), and perk up your ears during the pledge (which still has the "Under God" addition in it), and see that the majority still has some sway...separation or not....

You had mentioned that before Gazrok and you also stated that the term "under God," was once something else.

Could you elaborate?