The all-in-one Christian Web Site Community - Praize.com
Skip to Content

Should Church and state be separate?

Quote Reply
Should Church and state be separate?
So, recently I have been following this thread over in "Bible Answers" about the separation of Church and State, after I asked a few qustions (and was told where I could put those questions [here])*wink* I decided it was best to mosey over to my corner and ask my questions.



So my questions were: To what degree do you believe the Church should be involved in affairs of the state?

and

If you believe that the church should be involved in the affairs of the state which aspect of the church should be involved? Catholics? Baptists? Protestants? Methodists? etc.



ESERS, I appreciated your response and you basically answered question 2 for me ("the "church" being the body of Christ being led by the Spirit and the doctrines of the Word of God")I agree most people do vote with thier beliefs. You also asked a few questions and made statements that I feel deserve a response some of your questions were:



YOUR QUESTION: Wouldn't most homosexuals want to have same-sex marriage, homosexual education, etc. passed as national laws?



MY RESPONSE: Honestly, I would like to think that desire isn't just limited to homosexuals, I don't think anyone should be forbidden to express ther love, I never understood how someone elses marriage and family was threatening to the marriage and family of others, and just as your faith should not be censored, my lifestyle shouldn't be censored, but maybe that can be a whole new thread, as far as homosexual education, why shouldn't it be taught? The more you know about a group of people the less likely you are to fear and hate them, (less gay hate crime is a good thing)





YOUR QUESTION:Wouldn't minorities like to see more laws passed that favored working and educational oppurtunities for them?



MY RESPONSE:Wouldn't anyone?



YOUR QUESTION: Look at abortion; doesn't the "moral" viewpoint of the reproductive "rights" of women from those that promote that agenda succeeded in maintaining a law that represents their "morality" despite the fact that someone else's moral view would consider that aborted child a life?





MY RESPONSE: Yipes! let's just agree to disagree before we even look at that topic.







now that we know what other voting demographics would do, what positive additions to poitics and society do you believe the involvement of the church (as voting Christians) should bring about?



From shall we say "the outside looking in" it would appear that Christians are the only group activly seeking to legislate the personal choices of people whose morals, lifestyles and culture are vastly different from thier own. (If you disagree please don't get mad get even,[by providing examples])





"Christians have just as much right to praise God, spread the Gospel message, and read their Bibles any where they like without being sued by the ACLU."



I absolutly agree with your statement, but as far as I am concerned it is when a Christian request legislation that demands I conform to inherently Christian standards that I feel politically violated.

Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
Hello ravensong.



You write:



<< So, recently I have been following this thread over in "Bible Answers" about the separation of Church and State, after I asked a few qustions (and was told where I could put those questions [here])*wink* I decided it was best to mosey over to my corner and ask my questions. >>



How intriging...I believe you and other posters were invited to contribute to said debate.



Hm, I wonder if I shall meet with the same ...suggestion>



<<So my questions were: To what degree do you believe the Church should be involved in affairs of the state? >>



I think a better question would be...To what degree do you believe that goverment should be involved in affairs of the church?



Sauce for the goose, eh?



Oh, no...certainly not Catholics, for they must first bow to the Pope, don't you know?



Well at least Eric was engaging you in debate..



You write:



<< From shall we say "the outside looking in" it would appear that Christians are the only group activly seeking to legislate the personal choices of people whose morals, lifestyles and culture are vastly different from thier own. >>



Ah, yes, the sticky wicket..the thorn in the rose...the monkey in the wrench...the lump in the pudding...and various other nonsense phrases likened to "this is a christian nation" despite the fact that a good ...what?...hundred million citizens are NOT christian!?



from someone...a christian, perhaps?



<<"Christians have just as much right to praise God, spread the Gospel message, and read their Bibles any where they like without being sued by the ACLU.">>



Sure you do, your right to do so is protected, your children's rights to do so in public school is protected. It is all about protecting christians's rights all the time....RIGHT?!



Guess what, Non-christians are citizens too, with rights just as protected as yours....but in reality, it rarely works that way.



Why? Because your people lobby hard with mucho dinero, and black mail any politician who may disagree with your way....with the highway...so long sonny, bring on the good old boys.



you write, much kinder than I am currently:



<I absolutly agree with your statement, but as far as I am concerned it is when a Christian request legislation that demands I conform to inherently Christian standards that I feel politically violated.>>



How about personally violated? How about at times ethically violated?



How about humanely violated?



Christian Right? It is neither!













Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
  How can you separate yourself from your believe ... you are who you are and what you believe ... Some liberals are saying that christians shouldn't hold office .. Because they believe in God..

This country is a christian nation ... therefore i say only if you beieve in a God you should hold office , but one-one should be force to follow God if they don't wish it.. But we can-not aloud God to be take out of ever part of our lifes ... We are God's Army ... We want peace, and we fear no evil for God is our power..

God will protect his children, beware ... A nation with-out God will not last .. it will fall...

Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
Ryes,



I will leave the question of whether or not we are a Christian Nation to others.



I will say this: the concept of seperation of church and state was created first and foremost BY the church. Many of the religious groups which arrived in America did so because they were fleeing the grasp of state religion in England. They were well aware of what happens when government and religion mixes.



As for us being Gods Army...I am reminded of a quote "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war"
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
This country is a christian nation ... therefore i say only if you beieve in a God you should hold office ,




Really? Then why did Congress, in 1796 vote unanimously in favour of the phrase "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"?



Maybe they just read it wrong before they voted?



Of course that explains why "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States", which pretty much means your criteria should never be applied.



It also explains why Jefferson and other founding fathers strongly advocated "the wall of separation between church and state". Perhaps he should have talked to you first?



In essence, the very words of the founding fathers, and the actions of the government and legislatures during the formative years of the USA, pretty much explodes the myth that you have a "Christian" country.
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"




That means that the governement has no business creating a state run denomination, as was England. There is no "dising" Christianity here. At the same time the First Amendment garantees freedom of religion.



That means religious groups have the freedom to bear influence on legislators, to enact just laws. It is our responsibility as Christians to be informed so we can vote for, or tell, our legislators what is best for society. We have a right to do that. Abortion on demand, free contraception in schools, gay unions, and others such issues are evils and are destroying society. Radical liberals, cultural fascists, and relative moralists seem to excercise their right to bear influence on government, at the expense of the majority. Look at the war against Christmas, for example. Christmas is as much, maybe more, a cultural thing than it is religious.




"It should be unsurprising that then-Justice Rehnquist in 1985 said of the wall of separation: “It is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”"



Hear is a long boring essay you probably won't want to read:



Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State

By Joseph A. P. De Feo

http://www.catholicleague[...]ach.htm





Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
Should Church and state be separate?



Yes, definitely, but only to the extent of the exact wording of the first amendment. What it says is what it means. Nothing more, nothing less.



"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

From: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution




I agree. The problem is that most folk don't really understand the phrase.



First of all, since everything congress does is through legislation, that pretty much covers anything congress can do.



Secondly, to "establish" covers a huge area. Most people think it only includes something like creating an official agency that is religious in context. However it actually means much more.



If Congress gives an extra ear to the representatives of one religion, that is establishing a preference. If Congress gives money to a faith group, that is establishing a contractual relationship. If Congress makes a law that favours one religion's moral views over others, that is establishing a bias. If Congress permits Government to favour one religon, that is also establishing a bias.



In fact if Congress does anything that benefits a religion primarily, or elevates one religion over others, or that fails to treat religions equally or not at all, it is an establishment of something, which is unconstitutional.



Thus the wall of separation.
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
ravenssong,



This "question" has been around for so long, I'm beginning to think it pre-dates history!

To ask if the Church and State need to be seperate is akin to asking "how long is a minute?"

(A: Depends on which side of the bathroom door you are on.)

Stated differently, the answer is going to be dependent upon who one asks.



O.K. All seriousness aside...

As long as the "State" is run by people, there will always be a Church influence.

To say that one needs to "check their beliefs at the door", is nothing short of saying ROBOTS ONLY PLEASE.

This naton is founded upon Christian principles.

Our founding fathers used the Ten Commandments, for the basis on which our current laws are built upon.

Before anyone gets upset, I would like to point out how this affects each of us.

With the exception of the first Commandment,it can be looked upon as the Golden Rule.

Although I agree and live by the first one, not everyone does; but that's a different topic.

IMHO, the problem isn't one of endorsing, but one of prohibiting.

The a.c.l.u. has made it their #1 goal, to have anything that represents the Christian beliefs, censored, removed, what have you.

This is why they are also know as the Anti Christian Liberties Union.

(Me thinks me had better leave it at that, least I get w-a-y off topic.)



So in short...

There ain't no way it can happen!

(Good grammer ain't it?)
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
ravenssong (ravenssong)



Having read through this thread and found it very interesting, even ironically amusing, I would like to offer some observations from 'over the pond' from the point of view of a member of 'The Established Church', The Church of England.



It seems to me that legislation in your case and ours, has little practical effect on the situation as the electorate experience it in reality.



We have 'An Established Church' in England but in effect all that means is that Our Sovereign is crowned, married, buried etc. according to the ceremonies of 'The Church of England'. State occasions are a splendid way of showing off to the world at large that our English, (British) language and our quaint and antiquated English, (British) customs are still 'the best and most pompous entertainment on earth'. (You Americans could still share OUR Queen if you are willing to say sorry for the Boston Tea Party and all that wasted tea.).

Instead what have you Got? George Bush! A Southern Methodist who can't tell the difference between Austria and Australia. No swap, I think.



Our Parliament and political process is now open to participants of all beliefs and none, (though until the 19th Cent. Catholics were not allowed to worship). Our civil rights, including the right to assemble for worship are guaranteed regardless of which religion we wish to adhere to.



There is still Law preventing a Roman Catholic ever ascending to the throne or marrying The ruling Monarch but this is widely regarded as an anachronism nowadays. Our political system is not really connected to 'religious issues' and our many 'denominations' and 'religions' have by and large equal access to the political process to lobby their various causes.



WE do have Bishops of the Church of England sitting in our second house, (The house of Lords), but that house has only a power to amend legislation, not to initiate it, and it can be overridden by The House of Commons. By and large, although we have 'An Established Church' our political institutions are quite unfettered by any 'religious' bias.



Ironically, from what I can make out about the political system in The USA, it would appear almost the opposite is true of yours. Your constitution actually forbids the institution of any 'State Church' yet your political process seems to be rife with interference and control by 'Churches' and 'Church' members vying for power to legislate.



Your institutions and schools are avowedly, legally 'secular' yet their membership seems largely made up of 'various types of Christian believers', (a much larger majority than that found in European countries), who seem to want to have control over the morals and behaviour of others, ostensibly 'for the good of society'.



So you seem to have wound up just about exactly where your legislation was trying to prevent you from being. Whereas our legislation on Church & state, in the opposite direction, has led us to a situation where we have an 'Established Church' which does not meddle in strictly political issues and is essentially 'established' pretty well in name only.



Isn't this perversely ironic? Perhaps 400 years of settlement has matured our nation to the point where we have come to terms more sensibly with the legitimate roles that 'politics' and 'religion' rightly have to play in a democratic society.



Well! We have been at it longer than you have though, haven't we.



Love Chris.
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
"Christians have just as much right to praise God, spread the Gospel message, and read their Bibles any where they like without being sued by the ACLU."



I totally disagree, they do not have the right to pester and bother folks when ever and where ever.

s

There is such a thing as the right NOT to be herased too....



Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
Interesting comments. Many without consideration of community and respect for others I think.



Should the government be in control over the morals, which are taught in our schools? Or should that be left to the parents, regardless the morals?



Should gays have an agenda which introduces homosexual activity in these government facilities during the second grade, regardless of any personal conviction of the parents, religiously driven or morally so?

Along these lines, does it make sense to tell second graders men have sex with other men’s butts because they love them? (Sorry for the blunt honesty here)

Shouldn't this instruction be left to the parents, and their moral view, or is this the government’s job?



Many more examples, but I think this may make my point for me.

It appears the separation of church and state letter Thomas Jefferson mentioned (not in our constitution) is not understood in the least by the left. It is another phrase to twist and empower the government to introduce "diversity" into the lives of ALL Americans families whether the families in America want it or not.

So who is forcing what on whom.



People get power from being the victim. They are empowered when they are offended. And the ones left out to dry are the ones trying to work for community, as opposed to individual rights..."MY RIGHTS" they would say.

What a group of selfish people claiming they know what is best by controlling the education system and FORCING their views on our children.



As for some type of religious structure in government, it seems to be a necessity. What becomes the moral line when men can marry men, women can marry women, dogs can be married to men, dolphins can marry women, 3 men can marry a dog and adopt 2 girls, etc.



And when one of these deviants becomes appointed to the supreme court justice and it is time for a new law, the justices who are supposed to interpret law and not make it, determine it is not constitutional to deny a commune of men the right to create a foster care facility and take in children, feeding them, caring for them, and teaching them from age.... oh.... say...7 about how to have safe sex, free love, and make an adult happy?



But, because we don't want to "offend" someone who wants to have a "right" to live their life their way, then we must accommodate the individual regardless the cost to the society.



Religious structure and guidance in government helps to maintain a level and fair playing field for all. There is the exercise of religion and no religion in America. But who has the right guidelines for this country without a moral structure? OH, that's right, we get to use the secularists moral structure. GOOD.

Who's wife wants to come over and play with me today?

It is what I want, and apparently since religion is not a part of laws, there is no moral issue with this. Anybody else want to come over? Bring your kid too?



Morality is a structure founded in religious precepts (right word here?)

Morality is a "guide" to a safe and growing community. People want religion out so they can "have it their way".



In scripture people were dealt with for the sake of the community.

If you do not care about community...well...I don't know.

Many in America seem to completely disregard the fact that it is the fundamentals of America's structure, the Constitution and bill of Rights which gives them the FREEDOM to say their piece about this stuff without fear of death.



How so many think just completely escapes me. Go to Africa, Madagascar, some third world country and live for a year. You will come back loving America, not wanting to make it a socialist communistic society with government run health care that cannot even run FIMA, or the tax system, or a social security system without bankrupting it.

So many countries have proved so much of this does not work, but here we are with people wanting control of our schools, finances, private property rights (so profit via taxes can be made for the city government).



And sex again.... in our schools. The government and liberals wanting CONTROL over this system so as to indoctrinate our children to the way of life THEY prefer. If you don't want them to instruct your children you must be a religious freak....



The words "double standard" come to mind.



Me, a Christian. Do I want to force my beliefs on this country like the liberals want to force theirs? No.

And yet under the disguise of wanting "separation of church and state", they are actually calling for separation of good morals for the country, and their morals, for the children.

It is the children moving into places of significance. Hence the indoctrination in the liberal owned government run public school system.



None of this is news. We all know it is going on. Most of us trust that someone who has the time will step in and make the right decisions for this country, try to turn it around. We are just blue-collar workers trying to get home in time before our kids get to bed to remind them we love them.



Ultimately, I do believe God is in control, even as gross as some of these issues are getting.

Let no one be mistaken though. It is less that religion in government is the problem, and more that secularists and immoral liberals are.



Steve



PS. Moderator; if there is an issue with this post, please email me with what it is, and afford me the opportunity to change it before this is deleted. I doubt I could duplicate this, and it says what I want to say on this issue. Thank you
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
Dear Rurik1,



Ultimately I disagree with you in many ways. You talk of morals and indoctrination, of coercion and having beliefs forced upon others and how the Liberals are evil and warping the minds of America.



First, Liberal or Conservative is unimportant to me, I judge a book by it's content not it's cover which is unfortunately something many Christian do not do and it is evident on Praize. One very important aspect of politics for Christians is to have Christian leaders (God fearing men). George Bush has done a great job, he may fear God but he certainly doesn't mind causing death across the globe. Neither did Reagen who also "feared God" but certainly didn't mind causing coups and overthrowing democratically elected officials in other countries and introduce dictators in their place. Sorry, but a Christian does not make a better leader, they just buy votes far easier. Judge a man by his character not by what he "says" he is.



You talk about the "gay agenda"? You must be kidding me, grade 2 teachers talking about anal sex? What? First, the gay agenda is a joke. Homosexuals want equal rights (which your post seems very against for that matter). You would too if people attacked you in the streets for your lifestyle choice, if when you drove around you saw groups of people with boards telling you you're going to hell and are abominations. Homosexuals can raise children just as well as a Husband a wife can, unless you can find me a Psychology report that says otherwise. There are many Christian families that fail miserably as parents but because they believe in God you'll turn the other way? You neglect the child because the parents love God? Sorry, judge a person on their conduct not on their religious stance. I have 3 cousins from a Lesbian home, they are all honour students and very social, many friends and they get in no more trouble than their peers. Both parents are productive members of society. Guess who caused them the most trouble, Christians who slandered their names and plagued their lives (Ex husband). I don't know but to me being a Christian isn't going to church, it's acting in the moral way, vandalism, slander and theft isn't very Christian but that's what my "abominations" aunts had to suffer through from the "morally correct" Christians. It's unfortunate but the one aunt was removed from the Church after she entered her relationship with my aunt and their kids were REFUSED access to the Church because of their parents choice. This is right? This is moral? This is how society should act, if you disagree with someone you make their life hell until they comply?



People demand Government to demand Diversity and they should, it's the reason Christians are allowed to practice their own beliefs. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, the downfall/its greatest strength is allowing those voices you don't want to hear be spoken because only then can you be assured that your voice will never be silenced either. Tolerance isn't the same as acceptance, you don't need to embrace and love homosexuals or Muslims but to tolerate them isn't a large request - it's called equality but unfortunately throughout history the Church has shown it really doesn't like equality, they like power and do many Christians do as well. You want YOUR beliefs and YOUR morals enforced, you want those who differ from you to be removed from society.



This is a subject that's been in many other debates but ETHICS and MORALS do NOT require Religion. I do NOT believe in God but if anyone or any government tried to remove the rights of Christians to practice their religion I would stand shoulder to shoulder with them in protest. Would you do the same for me? I will never let your voice be silenced, I will argue and debate and do everything to make my point but never will I or many secularists allow for an authority to silence another persons voice. It's self preservation and those are the strongest ethics around, I will protect you because if I don't, I can't expect you to protect me.



"As for some type of religious structure in government, it seems to be a necessity. What becomes the moral line when men can marry men, women can marry women, dogs can be married to men, dolphins can marry women, 3 men can marry a dog and adopt 2 girls, etc."



Sounds great but where does this come from? Is it a single example? Maybe there was a point or a message that you clearly didn't understand in the article you read this in. BUT for arguments sake if you want to bring up vague and rare examples how about Christians selling their 13/14 year old DAUGHTERS to men much older. It's justified through the Bible and Christians have found loop holes in the law to allow it, the Parents co-sign their daughters off to men.. Telling me Christians are more moral?



http://www.hammeruncut.com/how-to-buy-a-14-year-old-bride/



Again, let me remind you, judge a person on their conduct not their religious affiliation! But unfortunately once again, many Religious people don't look past that one aspect, Atheist don't require you to belong to our "club".



"Religious structure and guidance in government helps to maintain a level and fair playing field for all. There is the exercise of religion and no religion in America. But who has the right guidelines for this country without a moral structure? OH, that's right, we get to use the secularists moral structure. GOOD.

Who's wife wants to come over and play with me today?

It is what I want, and apparently since religion is not a part of laws, there is no moral issue with this. Anybody else want to come over? Bring your kid too? "



WOW! This is an argument you really need to be careful using. Let me explain why. First, Religion and the Bible are your moral backbone, I'm an atheist so according to you, I don't have morals, I just do what I want. Well, let's look at it this way. They only reason you don't want to have sex with multiple partners or children is because God will punish you if you do so you must restrain yourself from these evil urges not because of your own choice but because you love God and fear his wrath. You aren't faithful to your wife because you love her dearly but because God says you can only have one sexual partner, correct? Now for an Atheist, yes some are promiscuous but many follow the same kinds of guidelines as those who follow the Bible. I know many non Christian couples who wouldn't cheat on each other not because they fear God but because they love each other enough that they wouldn't want to hurt their significant other in such a way. People need to respect other human beings first and from that respect for your fellow man comes the guidelines to society - I don't fear God but I would never have sex with a child or cheat on my significant other, I owe them both my deepest respect because of my love for my race. It's unfortunate you can't see that.



You paragraph about going to Africa etc I can agree with you on. It's why I believe Ron Paul is the best candidate for the U.S.A

(P.S It's FEMA)



When it comes to separation of Church and State to me it's simple. Public schools require no mandatory religion class, do I think schools should have an OPTION for Religion? Of Course! I don't believe in the removal of education, the more you know the better you are, the better choices you can make. BUT I don't want Religion mixing in with science or being mixed in with other courses. History is History, Science is Science, Gym is Gym and Psychology is Psychology I don't want a Psych class to have excerpts in their textbooks about the debate between whether Homosexuality is natural or not due to religious beliefs, prove it or teach it in Religion class.



I don't want the Legal system to have Religious morals tied into it, I don't want Christian values, Muslim values or anything else in the Law. The Law works a lot like Math, you have the foundational blocks and over time each and every new piece must coincide with the laws laid before it.



I want government to run itself and the Church to run itself they don't need to mix and mingle. Do I want Government controlling Religion? No but I don't want the President and the head of the Baptist church talking to one another with an unqualified monster giving "moral" advice to the President.





This is harsh and somewhat of a rant, I apologize but you really pushed a button with me Rurik1. I respect other people, I just expect them to have the same respect for me.



Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
Wow, Banksson, you pulled an oldie out of the forum files!



I was trying to remember my mood when I wrote that post...must have been really ticked off about something that was occuring in our locale.



Steve, you make an illogical assumption here:



okay, no cut and paste right now...gremlins again, no doubt...



I guess you assume that I and those who agree with me (most absent from this site for a long time)answered without consideration of community and respect for others, do you not? Hmm..just like a close-minded christian. What! Did I say that?



The reason I did is because that is how people with your attitude toward different notions come off. While there are some far left secularists who would have this country exist with an anything goes policy, most secularists are not like that and maintain a reasonable attitude toward what should be and what should not be.



So, not to worry, this country is not going to hell in a hand basket, because the vast majority of us are seeking compromise, not theocracy and not chaos. Equal rights, equal opportunities, balanced education with ethical philosophies taught. Freedom of religion and freedom from religion is not a complicated notion for a secular government or for an enlightened citizenry.



You write:



<<Should the government be in control over the morals, which are taught in our schools? Or should that be left to the parents, regardless the morals? >>



Okay, cut and paste working now...goodie!



When you speak of morals or ethics, do you mean the following, honesty, compassion, responsibility, a good work ethic, trustworthiness...stuff like that? No murder, no stealing, no lieing, no cheating..do good to others, so they will do good to you..don't tease, don't gossip, don't hit, don't give up, offer everyone a cookie, respect your elders (assuming they deserve it), help others who need help..these are values that students are taught in school.



Or do you mean..believe in God and follow the 10 Cs?



I cannot imagine a parent who would disapprove of the first set, but there are many parents who would disapprove of the last.



You continue:



<<Should gays have an agenda which introduces homosexual activity in these government facilities during the second grade, regardless of any personal conviction of the parents, religiously driven or morally so?

Along these lines, does it make sense to tell second graders men have sex with other men’s butts because they love them? (Sorry for the blunt honesty here)

Shouldn't this instruction be left to the parents, and their moral view, or is this the government’s job? >>



Should christians or muslims have an agenda which introduces deity belief and/or creationism to our schools regardless of parental acceptence?



As for your questions, no they should not, but how many cases in public school have occured like this? Are there second graders out there who are being introduced to anal sex? Or are they being introduced to the idea that not every family is made up of one man and one woman? This is most likely something they already know! And for the record, my gay friends don't like anal sex any more than I do. They prefer oral sex.



In most districts, parents have the opportunity to opt out their children from lessons that they find objectionable. If your school is not so oriented, then force change.



You write:



<<It appears the separation of church and state letter Thomas Jefferson mentioned (not in our constitution) is not understood in the least by the left. It is another phrase to twist and empower the government to introduce "diversity" into the lives of ALL Americans families whether the families in America want it or not.

So who is forcing what on whom.>>



It is apparent that the founders very much wanted separation for the best interest of both church and state. The church leaders at the time tried to force deity belief into the Constitution, but they were rebuffed, and so there is no mention of christianity in the document. That these founders accepted a creator is far different from instituting a government with a theocratic instead of a secular base.



If you do not want diversity, then opt out of our diverse community like the Ammish do. Isolate yourself and your children, teach them in your own home where you can control everything your family hears and sees and reads and does. Nobody is forcing you to be a part of the greater community and you have every right to establish your own haven.



You continue to rant:



<<eople get power from being the victim. They are empowered when they are offended. And the ones left out to dry are the ones trying to work for community, as opposed to individual rights..."MY RIGHTS" they would say.

What a group of selfish people claiming they know what is best by controlling the education system and FORCING their views on our children. >>



Yes, many people like you get lots of power by claiming victimhood. To hear you tell it, christians are being offended at every turn. Oh, you mean that YOU and your fellow christians are the ones who are trying to work for community...and those who see separation as a workable solution are not? Do you think I am not!? How dare you?



Let me tell you, my dear, it has been my children who have been forced to accept christian "morals" and christian beliefs and christian doctrine in our public schools. No teaching of evolution, christian radio stations playing in the office, bible clubs who openly pray for them, christian songs at every affair, ten commandments in the classroom, "God bless you" for every sneeze, religious speeches at graduation.



Offense? My husband had to give a professing of a deity when he was sworn into office...totally against all law. The meetings of local government have a prayer offered by a religious leader, christian of course.



Does your school allow prayer? It has to by law. The Equal Access Act of 1984 was written specifically to allow christian students the practice of their religion from bible reading, to tee shirts, to clubs and group prayer. So don't tell me that your kids are being denied their God in public school.



<<And when one of these deviants becomes appointed to the supreme court >>



Excuse me...who are these deviants of whom you speak? Atheists, deists, homosexuals, pagens, muslims, hockey players, porn stars, long distance runners, ex-military, catholics, public school teachers...? Who are you to call someone a deviant just because they do not agree with you or share your deity belief?



I really should read all the way through before I reply..I am just totally ticked off again by your ignorant rant, Steve.



You go from ignorant to insulting:



<<There is the exercise of religion and no religion in America. But who has the right guidelines for this country without a moral structure? OH, that's right, we get to use the secularists moral structure. GOOD.

Who's wife wants to come over and play with me today?

It is what I want, and apparently since religion is not a part of laws, there is no moral issue with this. Anybody else want to come over? Bring your kid too? >>



Why do you presume to know that anyone who is without religion...YOUR religion... is without a moral compass? What vile website for hate have you been visiting, Steve?



Our government is based on ethical philosophy, of which the judeo-christian is one. It was practical to include it because most of the country was reared in this religious philosophy and believed in the truth and justice of the Ten Commandments, but surely you cannot be so uneducated as to think that no other philosophy, either secular or religious, is not equally valuable in this arena? Our founders were enlightened people, who drew from many resources and experiences.



You are just angry and willing to insult me and others who hold to separation of state and church in order to make a bold statement, right? There is a level-headed person inside you, right, Steve? Or are you really the paranoid screeching fundie that you sound like in this post?



Now, are you talking about the far-left that want to socialize everything or are you talking about those who support separation or church and state? They are not one in the same, you know, so do not tar us all with the same brush.



<<And sex again.... in our schools. The government and liberals wanting CONTROL over this system so as to indoctrinate our children to the way of life THEY prefer. If you don't want them to instruct your children you must be a religious freak.... >>



Indoctrination? I would keep away from schools such as that, too. But what exactly do you mean by indoctrination? Let's see, we say "under God" in OUR pledge of allegience to OUR country. We hear OUR President mention God all the time. We have "In God We Trust" as OUR national motto. When I was in school we HAD to say the Lord's Prayer, still must offer a moment of silence to the void, I suppose.



Can't you influence your kids in your church and in your home? Are you that weak an influence on them that they will become homosexual at 7 years old because of being taught about that "alternative lifestyle" in school? Is your church too weak to combat whatever their classroom teacher might say about "diversity"? Do your kids respect you and your morals?



<< Do I want to force my beliefs on this country like the liberals want to force theirs? No.And yet under the disguise of wanting "separation of church and state", they are actually calling for separation of good morals for the country, and their morals, for the children.>>



I don't believe you do not want to force your beliefs on the rest of us, Steve. That is exactly what you would prefer happened, isn't it...that christianity was used as a reference for all behavior and its biblical laws were used to decide justice and punishment, and that all our students had to take bible classes and be forced to pray and atheists were forced back into their closets..right? Tell the truth, now.



How in the world can the children of atheists be good citizens? In fact, how can atheists be good parents? Do you want to save my children from my parenting techniques and my questionable morals, Steve? Should my kids be forced to attend your church and be forced to learn in "morally" correct schools so they can be good moral citizens like your kids?



<<Ultimately, I do believe God is in control, even as gross as some of these issues are getting.

Let no one be mistaken though. It is less that religion in government is the problem, and more that secularists and immoral liberals are.>>



Ultimately, it is human beings who are in control. You are assuming again that to be secular is to be immoral. Really, you post is just full of insults, Steve. Good to know just where you are coming from, buddy.



Now, why is this topic forced to be in Occult Debate?



Jeanne







Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
lol.



Will need a bit more time to think on this Jeanne. You reply as well as I expected.



Will post a reply a bit later. You make some great points.



Take care,

Steve
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
You, Steve, are obviously an enigma.



Jeanne
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
Hello Jrunior.



Excellent post.



I may not agree with you in your choice for president, as I am more conservative than liberal, but I can certainly agree with your other sentiments.



It irks my whole family when christians in our country tell us that one cannot be moral without God in their life, without help from the bible, without benefit of religious guidance in church. We know very well that is not so.



I, too, would support the rights of those who worship or live differently from me...as long as they obey the laws of our nation, and offer me the same support. Well, no, not even if they do not support my rights, I still feel strongly about theirs. I would hope there is some understanding about the need for us to live in a somewhat harmonius compromise.



However, if we examine the recent polling done we find that the majority do not want differing points of view or worship granted equal rights. That is most disturbing.



I think that cases which bring attention to the so-called "atheist agenda" have frightened the so-called "moral majority" but like all civil rights issues, shock is often necessary.



It should be noted that the notion of separation of church and state is not supported only by seculars or liberals, but by people of many diverse religions and by a broad political spectrum. Most recognize it as a positive approach to keeping government out of religion, as well as religion out of government.



It is not possible for our elected officials to completely remove their religious-based beliefs and guidelines from their government duties, but it is expected that they do not owe a greater allegience to the dogma of their particular brand of deity belief. The law of our nation must come first.



Our former Surgeon General under Reagan was such an official. He was first the doctor for the citizens of his nation, and acted as a medical professional above his religion, and during the initial AIDS awareness/prevention push was a great disappointment to Reagan because of it. Dr. Everett J. Koop is still one of my heroes. He was fired. Reagan wanted someone who would claim that homosexuality was immoral and abnormal, but Koop treated them with equal concern and the virus as any other disease threatening to become a plague. His swift call to action with straight forward dialogue, coupled with the excellent response of the gay community, was a great factor in curtailing the spread. I was on a educational task force to choose age appropriate curricula for our public schools from grade 4 to 12 and we all managed to agree in part because of his guidance and common sense.



The only concern of some extreme christian members was that we spoke of long-term monogomous relationships instead of marriage. It was as if a church sanctioned ceremony protected its members from having sex with AIDS infected people. "We must tell our children that if they have sex outside of marriage, THEY WILL DIE!" One man shouted those exact words at me.



The need to educate about AIDS ushered in a new era of what should be taught, and learning about homosexual life as another diversity of our country came along with it. That gay kids still feel pressured to be straight is a shame of an supposedly enlightened populace, and the fact that they are taunted, threatened, and often beaten by their peers is more than a shame. That gay kids commit suicide just because they are treated as lesser beings, immoral people and unworthy offspring should be enough for any person who questions if homosexuality is a "choice".



None of us can afford to be pushed back into the closet just because we offend the sensibilities of the country's major deity belief. We are citizens and we must always demans equal treatment under the law of our secular government.



All citizens are more equally treated when the wall of separation is maintained.



Churches are free to keep their monies, teach and preach within their properties, and much of the public zones, including members private areas and with permits to worship in some government areas.



Atheists and non-christians should be able to know that there are public places where they will not be forced to hear christian worhip and lectures, and that our public schools should be safely religion neutral.



I approve of ethics being taught in schools. I do not approve of an "anything goes" approach to life. There are not many who do approve of that sort of lifestyle. There are probably instances where a fringe group tries to foist such an education on the public schools in their area, but I would hope that saner people would offset such tactics. Still, it may occur...and so does an unwillingness to offend believers by banning religious material that is inappropriate occur. Parents must be vigilant.



I would not want to live in a country with a national religion that supercedes the secular law of the land. We can all see where that leads to. Our Founders knew well the danger of such church control over the lives and deaths of a citizenry, and they opted out of that kind of government.



Jeanne
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
Absolutely not!
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
Wow...Gee Whiz...



Did you bother to read any posts concerning this topic or did you just fling an opinion into the ether, Loandbehold?



How about you give us the reasoning behind your declaration, that is, can you defend your stance?



An opinion that strong must have some excellent reasoning behind it. Maybe we can all continue this discussion, and figure out a way that our current state of separation might work for our country as a multicultural and multi-deity-belief whole.



Steve never did reply. Makes me wonder if he altered his thinking about this topic...



Jeanne
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
This error continues for centuries.



It was set up that government could NOT impose any laws on religion nor should government dictate how a person should worship NOT the other way around.



This was never to take religion out of government but rather government out of religion.



It has been so misinterpreted that now it seems that if you are of a specific belief you have no rights to voice that belief in politics. That is incorrect.



Has anyone really ever read it?



No one wanted to see the government force religion on a society, regardless of what religion it was. This is what separated the United States from England in that they forced their citizens to worship at one church, namely CATHOLIC.



It was to liberate believers from worshipping THE ONE TRUE GOD in their own way not to endorse false religions. If you really study our countries history you will find that almost EVERYONE in politics named the name of Jesus Christ. Regardless of "denomination" you were to have the freedom to worship CHRIST your own way instead of the government endorsing a specific denomination.



This misinterpretation has lead to erecting false gods in this country and it was never written to do this. It was quite understood that the GOD OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and every document from that period concludes this.
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
Actually if you study real history, raather than Christian revisionist history, you'll discover that most of the father's of confederaation were not Christians, at least not "fundamentalist". You'll also discover that what those same men said about what they meant is significantly different from what people like kendra claim they meant.



Remember, those same men, and in fact the entire congress unanimously voted that the US is "in no way a Christian country".



That, and the writings of the founding faather's themselves, shows that they really did intend to keep religion out of government.
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
Actually I HAVE studied REAL HISTORY and as I've stated under another thread you really need to broaden your "understanding" and "knowledge" for your facts are not the only ones out there.
Quote Reply
Re: Should Church and state be separate? In reply to
nor are your's my dear.



The difference is that my facts come from the actual writings of those men, and from actual enacted legislation they voted on.



How do you deal with the fact that what you say they mean is not what they said they meant?



How do you deal with the fact that the congress they belonged to declared that this is NOT a Christian country, unanimously?



or would you prefer to keep dancing?