The Separation of Chuch and State

[wooljesus]

From the article at www.godoflamb.com/2012/02/23/the-separation-of-church-and-state/:

Elisabeth Simmons says:

To the contrary, Politics is only connected to Religion when the government over steps its boundaries. It appears, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you are comparing the two together as one. Which is completely inaccurate.

I am a Born-Again Christian and have the right to speak of my faith and Love for Christ to anyone at anytime. Just as you have the right to not talk aboit Him. It is however my prayer that you and others would not only accept Christ but see me as an example. Ultimately the decision lies with you and God and if He is not or has of yet spoke to you then nothing I or anyone else can say will change your mind. You will never know you’re lost until you’re found.
Reply

JB Turnstone says:

“Politics is only connected to Religion when the government over steps its boundaries.”

Politics is permanently connected to Religion because an over-stepping of those boundaries has been turned into a litmus test for what we might call “political fitness.” No candidate for president will ever stand much of a chance if he or she doesn’t publicly profess the Christian faith. Bill Maher complains about this a lot; I don’t agree with him on everything he says, but I think he’s absolutely correct in raising a serious objection to it. One could rightly argue that if a majority of Americans are Christian, it only makes sense that a majority of lawmakers should be as well–after all, majority rules. But let’s not forget that respect for minority consideration is essential to a healthy democracy. Also, public proclamations do not fulfill the commandments issued by Christ to his followers. They are, in fact, betraying them. Jesus said not to blow your own horn–this is a reference to the fact that the Jewish priestly class would blow trumpets as they walked through the streets so all the “unclean” people could get out of the way and carefully avoid bumping into them (by contrast, modern American Republican Christian politicians frequently set up “free speech zones” to keep protesters a quarter mile away from them when they make public appearances. Talk about maintaining ritual purity). Jesus said to preach not in the streets and synagogues “as the hypocrites” do. Here’s an interesting fact: 2,000 years ago, the word “hypocrite” did not mean someone who says one thing and does another. It is the ancient Greek word for “actor.” So if you have a politician who panders to the religious right even when he himself is only casually religious (as was the case with Sen. McCain in 2008), then that politician is most certainly a “hypocrite.” Instead of proclaiming your faith in public, Jesus said to pray in your own closet–in a room within a room within a house. The message is: make your relationship with God a private affair. If a Christian politician wants to use govern us according to Christian principles, let him do so. But let him do so quietly. American Christian zealots who demand constant affirmation by their representatives are being selfish and shallow. They’ve also turned our political system into a de facto religious institution. I think this is partly what Matt is getting at when he refers to politicians as modern religious leaders–the other point being that they’re about as truly accountable to the voters as the Pharisees were to the common people of Jerusalem.

[wooljesus]

Elisabeth Simmons says:

And in your picture there is only one religious leader and that is the Pope. The others are well known for there lack of religious or just plan political career. Butler was in no way a religious man and sought to kill all Jews off the face of the earth. That’s like comparing Obama to Rev Graham. One is a very Religious and honorable man while the other would rather become a ruler over us.

JB Turnstone says:

Another important issue to remember is that the separation of church and state was an agreed-upon consensus among the founders because the very government against which they were rebelling–the British monarchy–was itself a religion. King George was the head of the Church of England, not just the head of state. It was as much a repudiation of their enemies as it was a fulfillment of enlightenment ideals.

[wooljesus]

In response to Elisabeth:

I assume by "Butler" you meant Hitler; he was VERY MUCH a religious man - about as religious as they come. He religiously believed that Jews (and a number of others) were responsible for the sad state of Germany after World War I, and subsequently incited a religious revolution built on the Church of Nazism.

I think you're hung up on the textbook definition of religion, expecting it to only exist where there are altars and pews. It is the definition of these latter terms, along with the term religion itself, in which you should strive to recognize subjectivity - JB nailed it when he mentioned "free speech zones." Our society's altars are political podiums, media channels, magazines; we lay upon them the ritualized symbols of our most treasured talismans (material wealth).

Jefferson (and others) recognized that a free nation must built, as closely as possible, on the foundation of complete separation of opinion and mathematical operation. Social issues (read: subjective truths) should be left to the people.

[wooljesus]

Feb 24, 2012 2:35:41 GMT -6 wooljesus said:

Elisabeth Simmons says:

And in your picture there is only one religious leader and that is the Pope. The others are well known for there lack of religious or just plan political career. Butler was in no way a religious man and sought to kill all Jews off the face of the earth. That’s like comparing Obama to Rev Graham. One is a very Religious and honorable man while the other would rather become a ruler over us.

They are all religious men and women. This does not mean I was suggesting they adhere to what we currently accept as religion. For example, the support of or attack against abortion are both purely religious positions, as both must necessarily be based on opinion. We can't know when consciousness forms, when a life is a life, or (and to me, more importantly) whether we have any right to meddle with those that meddle. Christianity teaches that God will judge these people, and that we should let them do whatever they want.

The only rules necessary in terms of social control were knocked out of the ball park by the founders of our nation: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. These three ideals - you are entitled to live and you are entitled to think and do whatever you want so long as your pursuit does not impede another's - that's the only moral code we need. The rest should be up to the States (i.e. local communities). This would allow people to find geographical locations in which they could freely practice their beliefs.