|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/1/2010 10:08:06 AM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 466
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
quote:
ORIGINAL: dnp200450
Christianity in the United States is extremely diverse and covers a wide spectrum of beliefs.
for sure - which is why I previously posted that the issue here is WHAT you apply and HOW you apply it. Secular humanism ALSO encompasses a wide range of beliefs (do you need me to google the links? start with "peter singer" if you like), but I don' t hear anyone espousing the separation of human reason and state.
Given a choice between God's truth applied well, and human reason applied well... which do you pick and why? (PS - the answer only matters where those two diverge btw)
In a nation as religiously diverse as American society, and by religiously diverse I mean to refer to atheists, agnostics, deists, along with recognized religious establishments, I will go with the latter for any and all decisions where the government would be supporting, endorsing, or favoring a particular religion. This does not mean, however, a religious belief or religious moral precept cannot legitimately serve as the basis for a law.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/1/2010 10:52:34 AM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
Given a choice between God's truth applied well, and human reason applied well... which do you pick and why? (PS - the answer only matters where those two diverge btw)
In a nation as religiously diverse as American society, and by religiously diverse I mean to refer to atheists, agnostics, deists, along with recognized religious establishments, I will go with the latter for any and all decisions where the government would be supporting, endorsing, or favoring a particular religion. This does not mean, however, a religious belief or religious moral precept cannot legitimately serve as the basis for a law.
I posed the question this way because it seemed to me that many people do think that the latter choice is correct to promote civil harmony among divergent belief in the citizens. And for sure I'm not interested in a state under the control of a Christian group with views I do not find Biblical. So to a prior post - point taken, not all Christians agree.
Still, I find this a startling compromise and conclusion - eg that God's truth (well applied) is inferior to man's reason (well applied) in areas where the two diverge. In a capitulation to our concerns about how people apply God's truth we in essence are saying "in this case God is wrong, men know better how best to get along".
Two other thoughts on this topic... first, to the point about "how would you like a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc government instead" as way to lead to some kind of "aha" about why a (well applied) Christian approach must be discarded in compromise. I do need to point out that as a Christian I believe those religions to be wrong, and their adherents are deceived. While there can be some common ground and by God's common grace they are not utterly wrong, still they are wrong.
Next... while I still content that all laws have some kind of moral basis, I do understand that in some cases "legislating morality" as a way of compelling behavior can sometimes be a bad approach. However, where I think many Christians are drawing a line is at legislating immorality.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/1/2010 12:54:48 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 466
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
Given a choice between God's truth applied well, and human reason applied well... which do you pick and why? (PS - the answer only matters where those two diverge btw)
In a nation as religiously diverse as American society, and by religiously diverse I mean to refer to atheists, agnostics, deists, along with recognized religious establishments, I will go with the latter for any and all decisions where the government would be supporting, endorsing, or favoring a particular religion. This does not mean, however, a religious belief or religious moral precept cannot legitimately serve as the basis for a law.
I posed the question this way because it seemed to me that many people do think that the latter choice is correct to promote civil harmony among divergent belief in the citizens. And for sure I'm not interested in a state under the control of a Christian group with views I do not find Biblical. So to a prior post - point taken, not all Christians agree.
Two other thoughts on this topic... first, to the point about "how would you like a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc government instead" as way to lead to some kind of "aha" about why a (well applied) Christian approach must be discarded in compromise.
Next... while I still content that all laws have some kind of moral basis, I do understand that in some cases "legislating morality" as a way of compelling behavior can sometimes be a bad approach. However, where I think many Christians are drawing a line is at legislating immorality.
quote:
Still, I find this a startling compromise and conclusion - eg that God's truth (well applied) is inferior to man's reason (well applied) in areas where the two diverge. In a capitulation to our concerns about how people apply God's truth we in essence are saying "in this case God is wrong, men know better how best to get along".
I do not think either message is sent. I think the message being sent is in a nation with a lot of religious diversity, the government is not the best place, perhaps it is the last place, for God's truth to be disseminated. I find it most interesting neither Jesus, his followers, Paul, or the apostles ever appealed to the Roman senate to pass laws codifying Jesus' teachings, in an effort to reveal or announce the primacy of God's truth.
quote:
I do need to point out that as a Christian I believe those religions to be wrong, and their adherents are deceived. While there can be some common ground and by God's common grace they are not utterly wrong, still they are wrong.
The point being missed here is the fact all religions have a common denominator and it is the claim of, "We are right, every other religion is wrong." The other common denominator they all share is none of them can demonstrate their claim of truth to be likely true, absolutely true, etcetera, much less other religious adherents are backing the wrong horse. If the basis for codification of a religious belief is, "I believe it is true," then we have a dilemma of codifying every religious belief in this country, which necessarily includes those you believe are false.
quote:
However, where I think many Christians are drawing a line is at legislating immorality.
What are examples of this happening? I suppose you may refer to U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Roe v. Wade, opinions protecting certain kinds of pornography, laws no longer criminalizing prostitution, or drug use. Yet, these are not examples of legislating morality. These are examples where people are given a choice to exercise their own morality, a choice to determine for themselves what is right, what is wrong, what is moral, what is immoral. This liberty, this free will, is taken away by the imposition of religious morality. What God originally gave to mankind, which was a choice to be obedient, a choice to conform their behavior to his moral edicts, Christians seek to take away by the imposition of their own morality.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/1/2010 8:25:16 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
Still, I find this a startling compromise and conclusion - eg that God's truth (well applied) is inferior to man's reason (well applied) in areas where the two diverge. In a capitulation to our concerns about how people apply God's truth we in essence are saying "in this case God is wrong, men know better how best to get along".
quote:
the government is not the best place, perhaps it is the last place, for God's truth to be disseminated.
I am NOT advocating it be disseminated via the state. On THAT definition of church/state roles I agree. I am talking about God's truth being applied.
quote:
I do need to point out that as a Christian I believe those religions to be wrong, and their adherents are deceived.
quote:
The point being missed here is the fact all religions have a common denominator and it is the claim of, "We are right, every other religion is wrong." ...we have a dilemma of codifying every religious belief in this country, which necessarily includes those you believe are false.
Well... in fact there ARE some religions that teach the multiple paths lead to God and you may choose yours (they are wrong). I am not posing a dilemma in which we must codify all beliefs. I am simply saying that I do not apologize for imposing my religious views on the government. To the extent I do it, I do it because I believe that God's word (properly applied) is THE right choice.
quote:
However, where I think many Christians are drawing a line is at legislating immorality.
quote:
What are examples of this happening? I suppose you may refer to U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Roe v. Wade, ...This liberty, this free will, is taken away by the imposition of religious morality. What God originally gave to mankind, which was a choice to be obedient, a choice to conform their behavior to his moral edicts, Christians seek to take away by the imposition of their own morality.
Abortion on demand and the push to legalize same sex marriage are two examples that come to mind.
I'm not sure I'm following your free will argument? You seem to be saying that the right to sin is God given right not to be restricted by force of law? You draw a distinction between God's moral edicts and Christians "own morality"? Not following that one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/1/2010 9:23:49 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 466
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
Can you provide for me a Biblical example where God demands his edicts be codified by the gentile nations?
quote:
I am simply saying that I do not apologize for imposing my religious views on the government. To the extent I do it, I do it because I believe that God's word (properly applied) is THE right choice.
This does create a dilemma because, as I stated before, this makes you no different than the Muslim, Buddhist, or any other individual. Consequently, we are left asking why you should be successful in your religious imposition on the government?
quote:
I am NOT advocating it be disseminated via the state. On THAT definition of church/state roles I agree. I am talking about God's truth being applied.
This is a distinction without any difference. A state applying God's truth through and by its laws is dissemination of God's truth. Laws affect all people within the jurisdiction, i.e. the effect of the law, the dictates of the law, are disseminated throughout the entire jurisdiction.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/1/2010 11:57:14 PM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 634
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the phrase "under God" until 1956. Ahem....that would be 1954. Not that it makes much difference, LOL.
quote:
I don't understand why you would see that as a personal attack. Because the way you framed the statement IMPLIED that I believed the framers wanted the country to be Godless. That is most certainly not what I meant and I think you know that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/2/2010 11:47:29 AM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
This does create a dilemma because, as I stated before, this makes you no different than the Muslim, Buddhist, or any other individual. Consequently, we are left asking why you should be successful in your religious imposition on the government?
Why should a secular humanist be successful in imposing their view of truth instead? Some world view will prevail.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/3/2010 11:19:12 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3511
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
This does create a dilemma because, as I stated before, this makes you no different than the Muslim, Buddhist, or any other individual. Consequently, we are left asking why you should be successful in your religious imposition on the government?
Why should a secular humanist be successful in imposing their view of truth instead? Some world view will prevail.
You seem intenet on a faulty paradigm. World views will overlap. Atheists and secular humanists probably agree with most religious people most of the time on behavior that can be legislated.
_____________________________
"It's an effort to elevate one's language to sound more academic, more scholarly," Lucas said. "I don't think I'd give her an A for anything."- Brad Lucas of TCU on Palin's refudiate gaffe
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/3/2010 9:04:09 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
You seem intenet on a faulty paradigm. World views will overlap. Atheists and secular humanists probably agree with most religious people most of the time on behavior that can be legislated.
I had previously said the only place it mattered was where the decisions diverge.
I cannot say I've thought through all the implications... but the OP sent me along a line of thought I found interesting. The idea seems to be the the BEST way to govern is from a purely secular humanist basis (for all the reasons people keep posting back at me). Now... if other Christians believe as I do - that God's truth, correctly applied is best for them and for everyone else too... AND believe as the Bible says.... that the wisdom of man is suspect. Well... where the decisions overlap - good! where there's a difference - which one would be right?
Now.... I'm happy to concede that there can be differences in discerning the proper application of the Bible to the affairs of men... but that's NOT the core argument that keeps coming back. The core argument SOUNDS like we cannot say that God's truth, properly applied, is BEST for governing. We MUST agree to the lowest common denominator of all religions (true and false) AND let secular humanism have the final word in a disagreement.
What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/7/2010 9:44:51 PM
|
|
|
yankeedoodled
Posts: 226
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
|
Seperation of Church and State has been settled by the President, the President has chosen a religion for America to financially support.
NASA To Focus On Muslim Outreach
Last Updated: Wed, 02/17/2010 - 3:30pm
A few weeks after killing the U.S.A.’s world-famous moon-mission program, President Obama has ordered the space agency that operates it to focus on reaching out to Muslim countries.
Indeed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) mission will shift from space exploration to Muslim diplomacy, as per the commander-in-chief’s orders. When Obama announced earlier this month that he would slash NASA’s $100 billion plan to return astronauts to the moon, he didn’t mention where some of the resources would be directed.
The president only said the moon program (Constellation) is behind schedule, over budget and overall less important than other space investments. NASA’s attempts to pursue its moon goals were inadequate and took funding away from other important programs, including robotic space exploration, science and earth observations, Obama claimed.
NASA’s new secret Muslim outreach mission was conveniently omitted though the head of the agency finally revealed it this week. NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden disclosed that Obama wants him to “find ways to reach out to dominantly Muslim countries” as part of the administration’s efforts to make the space agency a tool of international diplomacy.
Bolden referred to the new mission as an effort to reach out to “non-traditional partners,” especially countries that don’t have an established space program. Of special focus is Indonesia because it’s the world’s largest Muslim nation, Bolden explained. No word yet on how much money the U.S. government will invest in the Muslim outreach.
In the meantime, a congressional firestorm has brewed over Obama’s plans to nix the moon-mission program, according to news reports. Dozens of federal lawmakers have sent letters to NASA’s chief insisting that the Constellation moon program remain intact. Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, blasted Obama for cutting the moon program since it will likely cause the U.S. to fall behind countries like China and Russia in space exploration.
------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON - Former President Bill Clinton has told an Arab-American audience of 1,000 people that the U.S. is no longer just a black-white country, nor a country that is dominated by Christians and a powerful Jewish minority
In a speech to the group on Saturday, Clinton said that given the growing numbers of Muslims, Hindus and other religious groups here, Americans should be mindful of the nation's changing demographics, which led to the election of Barack Obama as president.
Clinton said by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with European heritage and that in an interdependent world "this is a very positive thing."
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=566706
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One is contamination, the other to be financially supported, aside from the many times other Muslims and Jihadist have been politically favored, i'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/8/2010 12:59:55 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: yankeedoodled
Seperation of Church and State has been settled by the President, the President has chosen a religion for America to financially support.
sounds more like a novel approach to foreign policy. this would fall under the category of separation of church and secretary of state I'd say.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/8/2010 1:22:31 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 466
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
This does create a dilemma because, as I stated before, this makes you no different than the Muslim, Buddhist, or any other individual. Consequently, we are left asking why you should be successful in your religious imposition on the government?
Why should a secular humanist be successful in imposing their view of truth instead? Some world view will prevail.
First of all, your assumption laws impose "truth" is perhaps problematic. What laws, presently in existence, do you think impose truth?
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/8/2010 7:22:10 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
Why should a secular humanist be successful in imposing their view of truth instead? Some world view will prevail.
First of all, your assumption laws impose "truth" is perhaps problematic. What laws, presently in existence, do you think impose truth?
All of them? I mean... why would a law based on a false premise be best for the governed people?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/10/2010 2:56:20 AM
|
|
|
wolfvanzandt
Posts: 576
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
You might want to look up the term "legal fiction".
All laws are based on best guesses. Human society is too complex to be trying to pin down truths on which to base laws.
Take for instance the speed limit. There are stated speed limits of all roads in the US, but research has shown rather conclusively that, if a person is driving less than 10 mph below the prevailing traffic speed, then they present a traffic hazard. The speed limit is based on the safe speed for the average conditions of the road. Which truth should the law follow?
Laws aren't based on truths - truths aren't always accessible in the drafting of a law. They're based on "working truths" - concepts that are predicted to lead to the desired outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/10/2010 11:53:32 AM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wolfvanzandt
All laws are based on best guesses. Human society is too complex to be trying to pin down truths on which to base laws.
Oh... I agree with you completely. I'm not advocating a theocracy or some religious test for office. Let me vary the terminology a little to see if I can be clearer...
I find it fascinating that Christians on the one hand believe that God answers prayers, grants wisdom and has accurately described the human condition in the Bible - but on the other hand will argue (vehemently) that bringing this wisdom to bear on matters of public policy is wrong -- UNLESS that wisdom (truth, or a correct application of God's Word) happens to pass muster as ALSO correct and proper by the wisdom (truth) of the world.
I just asked which wisdom gets the final say when a proper Christian answer is different than a purely secular answer. Everyone keeps saying that the "best" government is one where the secular answer wins every time.
I am not saying that application is easy and arriving at the right answers is simple. I'm just pushing back to see what you all think about God's revealed truth, wisdom and guidance vs man's natural wisdom. It seems that the general view is that man is SO bad at accurately finding God's way that we are SURE that man's own logic is the lesser of two evils.
Am I missing it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/10/2010 1:16:26 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 262
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
I find it fascinating that Christians on the one hand believe that God answers prayers, grants wisdom and has accurately described the human condition in the Bible - but on the other hand will argue (vehemently) that bringing this wisdom to bear on matters of public policy is wrong -- UNLESS that wisdom (truth, or a correct application of God's Word) happens to pass muster as ALSO correct and proper by the wisdom (truth) of the world.
Of course a law has to pass constitutional muster, or else it would be unconstitutional. Why should anyone want to break the law of the land? The founders set down the ground rules, and we are obliged to obey them. If you don't like the Constitution, then go get it changed.
quote:
I just asked which wisdom gets the final say when a proper Christian answer is different than a purely secular answer. Everyone keeps saying that the "best" government is one where the secular answer wins every time.
I don't contend that the 'secular' answer is 'best'. Merely that it is constitutional, and thus allowable under the law of the land. Perhaps the world would be better if malls were forced to close on Sundays. But there is no non-religious reason for promoting such a law, nor a compelling interest for the government to shut businesses in this way. (though curiously, many such blue laws remain on the books - you can't buy a car on Sunday in several states. Perhaps the state has a compelling interest in seeing that used car salesmen spend at least one day a week more virtuously.)
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/10/2010 1:51:44 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Of course a law has to pass constitutional muster, or else it would be unconstitutional. Why should anyone want to break the law of the land? The founders set down the ground rules, and we are obliged to obey them. If you don't like the Constitution, then go get it changed.
What part of the constitution would an application of Biblical truth violate?
I'm not advocating that congress establish a religion. I'm not advocating a religious test for office. I am merely asking why ideas with a religious basis are identified as wrong and the concept that church and state must separate espoused. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, so I don't see this as a candidate for an amendment. I just find it interesting that even Christians rail against certain ideas as "religious" and therefore unfit for application in governing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/10/2010 5:37:05 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 262
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Of course a law has to pass constitutional muster, or else it would be unconstitutional. Why should anyone want to break the law of the land? The founders set down the ground rules, and we are obliged to obey them. If you don't like the Constitution, then go get it changed.
What part of the constitution would an application of Biblical truth violate?
Maybe none. Depends.
The Supreme Court gets the final say about what does and does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Lemon Test is currently the most accepted method by which the Supremes make these determinations.
What sort of Biblical truth do you have in mind? Maybe Exodus 31:15?
"Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death."
I think this would not pass the Lemon Test, and would be unconstitutional.
quote:
I am merely asking why ideas with a religious basis are identified as wrong
They are not necessarily wrong, nor are they necessarily unconstitutional.
quote:
and the concept that church and state must separate espoused. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution
Even though the exact phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the constitution, the courts often use Jefferson's phrase to explain and interpret what the founders meant (and that's their job!). To quote wikipedia: "The phrase "separation of church and state" became a definitive part of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S. (1879), where the court examined Jefferson's involvement with the amendment and concluded that his interpretation was "almost an authoritative declaration" of its meaning."
So both the phrase and the concept of "separation of church and state" has been a part of the standard interpretation of what the First Amendment means for well over a century. And of course it was used by Jefferson and Madison long before that.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/11/2010 1:49:56 AM
|
|
|
wolfvanzandt
Posts: 576
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Davelinde, I would think that a Christian's "secular" opinions would necessarily be influenced by their religious opinions. If I were called to vote on a law to support or reject homosexual marriage, I would most likely vote to reject. That's my secular opinion.
Citizens in a democracy (or even a democratic republic) are called to join all other (voting) citizens to add their preferences to the mix. That may bring church and state together but the only alternative is to exclude all citizens with any religious influences and the result would be a very tint voting pool.
I don't think that's ever been the intent of "separation of church and state" although there are a few radical minds that, it seems, would likek it to be so.
I would not want to vote against homosexual marriage, "because the Bible says so" although part of the reason I would be voting that way would indeed be, "because the Bible says so." I do not want to be identified as the enemy of homosexuals simply because my ministry demands my ability to be able to talk to them. I think the moral issue is vastly subordinate to the missionary issue.
So I guess what I'm saying is that we need to make a distinction in the church between voting and militating. Christ and His followers were very pointedly nonpolitical - or at least politically neutral. I would assume that it is because political activism is vastly inferior to the things Christ actually told us to do, and I feel that the failure of the Moral Majority is a big indicator of that. We don't change the world primarily on Capitol Hill but in the individual hearts of people. Our political activity should always be subordinated to a heart of love and a desire to see others come to the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/11/2010 2:49:04 AM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 997
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey Wolf, nice to see you came back too. The thing I'm thinking about after reading your post is that homosexuality was probably not the political issue then as it is now. Sheesh, even homosexuals know, deep in their hearts, that thier preferred sexual behavior is wrong. Otherwise, they would not see fit to need justification.
_____________________________
A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/11/2010 9:57:10 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 262
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
zamdad, did interracial couples know, deep in their hearts, that their preferred sexual behavior was wrong? Otherwise, why did they see fit to rock the boat in search of legal justification?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/11/2010 11:41:59 AM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wolfvanzandt
Davelinde, I would think that a Christian's "secular" opinions would necessarily be influenced by their religious opinions. If I were called to vote on a law to support or reject homosexual marriage, I would most likely vote to reject. That's my secular opinion.
BINGO!
Personally I want my rational thinking not just to be "influenced" by my spiritual beliefs but DOMINATED by them. Governing aside... I believe that we are given the ability to think rationally and by all means MUST use it - but to have our beliefs LED by our mind in a secular way is just foolish on an individual level. I get the impression there are Christians here who don't agree with this? (another thread I suppose).
Our beliefs should lead us:
as individuals
in a family context
in a church context
in a community context
in a society context
AND IN governing at a state and federal level
So for someone (like myself) who wants their own beliefs to be led and dominated by God - saying "I've got a secular opinion" seems like saying "I know how to form the best ideas but in this case I'm settling for second best and suspect ideas because the US constitution says so..."
So to the quote above. I want my leaders MORE under the influence of the Bible (correctly applied... which is a different debate) and not less.
I had understood the "wall of separation" is intended to keep government from getting entangled in church (I agree), but only recently (essentialsaltes sound to have some facts on this history?) begun to additionally mean that the church (in my thinking a proxy for a belief system) should not entangled in government. (I disagree)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/11/2010 2:15:19 PM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 997
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
essentialsaltes
zamdad, did interracial couples know, deep in their hearts, that their preferred sexual behavior was wrong? Otherwise, why did they see fit to rock the boat in search of legal justification?
Apples and oranges. Take that discussion to the homosexuality folder.
_____________________________
A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/11/2010 4:59:58 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 262
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
I had understood the "wall of separation" is intended to keep government from getting entangled in church (I agree), but only recently (essentialsaltes sound to have some facts on this history?) begun to additionally mean that the church (in my thinking a proxy for a belief system) should not entangled in government. (I disagree)
I don't think anyone feels that the First Amendment prevents lawmakers or voters from considering their religious beliefs when making their vote. There's no way a person could just switch off that part of their brain.
Nevertheless, the Constitution sets out rules for the kinds of legislation that can actually be passed.
As for the history of the wall, consider a couple vetos made by President Madison ("Father of the Constitution") in 1811.
In brief, the two laws that Congress passed, and that Madison vetoed, involved giving public land to particular churches. Madison explained that this violated his understanding of the First Amendment, and after this explanation, Congress's votes to override the veto did not even get a majority, much less the supermajority needed to override the presidential veto.
But more importantly, what did the Baptists think about the President refusing to aid the Baptist church? One Baptist church wrote:
"Considering the said affair as proceeding from Some of our Religious Connections and that the Same is not Consistent with the Spiritual interest of Religion and that the tendency of Such a procedure if perpetuated would inevitably give to Religious Societies an undue weight and Corrupt influence in public affairs at large and diminish Religious enlargement impairing our civil and Religious liberties and in fine Contaminate our national morals we therefore desire to assure you that we entertain a high Sense of and Confidence in your illustrious objection against the Bill wherein we humbly conceive as eminent an Instance of patriotism have displayed as in any occurrence of the kind."
So as early as 1811, people were concerned about 'religion' having too much influence on government. Even though a Baptist might be forgiven for favoring an increase in Baptist influence on government, instead this church took the even more noble position to refuse that influence, and to recognize and commend Madison's 'patriotic' action.
Indeed, as Madison replied to that church:
"I have recd. fellow Citizens your address, approving my Objection to the Bill contain[in]g a grant of public land, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House Missippi Terry. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constn: of the U.S. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself. Among the various religious Societies in our Country, none have been more vigilant or constant in maintain[in]g that distinction, than the Society of which you make a part, and it is an honourable proof of your sincerity & integrity, that you are as ready to do so, in a case favoring the interest of your brethren, as in other cases."
To me it seems clear that Madison (and the Baptists) agree that the 'wall of separation' in the First Amendment goes both ways, in order to ensure the purity of both sides.
< Message edited by essentialsaltes -- 3/11/2010 8:25:08 PM >
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/11/2010 9:24:17 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
I don't think anyone feels that the First Amendment prevents lawmakers or voters from considering their religious beliefs when making their vote. There's no way a person could just switch off that part of their brain.
Nevertheless, the Constitution sets out rules for the kinds of legislation that can actually be passed.
In brief, the two laws that Congress passed, and that Madison vetoed, involved giving public land to particular churches.
IIRC Madison and several other framers had seen religious intolerance in the extreme during the colonial period. Ironically it was ALL Protestant denomination fighting Protestant denomination. He was dead on correct that this needed to be curtailed - both for the good of the union and the good of the religious groups themselves.
I have no issue AT ALL with the establishment clause or the shorthand expression "a wall of separation between church and state" to refer to ESTABLISHMENT. Granting public lands to a church is not so hard to judge as "establishment".
However, the pendulum swings... now the mere display of religious symbols on public land is a supposed violation and in some communities simply ZONING a church is too much to ask and fought tooth and nail.
If I am remembering Madison's reasoning correctly - I fully agree. The separation of church and state is intended protect the church and allow it to thrive. The logic being, if the religion is valid - it will grow and flourish WITHOUT the support of the state. In fact, having the state establish and promote religion will cause the state sponsored form to gain a political nature and half-hearted adherents.
With all this... I agree.
Maybe I just read too many outrageous secular rants promoting pure humanism and I'm reacting when I hear people who I assume to be fellow believers using some of the same logic and protests.
Where I DO NOT agree (and you seem to concede) is the irrational idea that to properly govern a Christian law maker must arrive at all decision via a purely secular route. It's an impossible division in your mind and to my thinking not even desirable if the legislator in question is genuine Christian.
I see this applicable in the areas of public policy on education, marriage, and definitions of when life begins among other areas. EG the things the OP opined as "undoing" separation and "legislating morality" by Christians who for some reason weren't content with the "best" secular answers...
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
