Separation of Church and State

That's not at all accurate. First off, both Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were established by Christians with the religious liberty codified into law. The primary reason people became aware that religious liberty could work in soceity is due to those branches of Christianity that preached that and put it into practice, and did so long before any more secular thinkers considered advocating such a thing.Massuchessets at the time of the Constitution was not a secular colony and required all office-holders be members of one of 2 specific churches and hold specific beliefs, at least on paper, well into the middle of the 19th century. They did not believe in religious liberty in the same way as other colonies and states, but to call them theocratic is nonsense. They had a state religion, sure, but they were not theocratic.Georgia, I believe, began as a penal colony. The Baptists lobbied Jefferson and Madison and others so hard in Virginia because at times Anglican dominance in the colonies was used to try to defraud heirs by claiming marriages outside the established church were unlawful, but considering that the head of the Church of England was officially the Monarchy, it is not surprising to see some move away from that church.But one thing is clear. The colonies were never theocratic, not even Massuchusetts, the most restrictive colony in religious affairs, and the colonies served as great experiments to put Christian Anabaptist theology into practice in mandating religious freedoms.This message has been edited by randman, 12-04-2005 02:04 AM

1. No colonies were founded on theocracies. You keep saying that but offer no substantiation, and it's patently an absurd claim.Is England a theocracy, for example? They are more of a theocracy than any of the colonies.2. On the question of religious liberty, I gave you 2 colonies, RI and PA, that were specifically founded on the concept of separation of Church and State from the very beginning, and keep in mind this was long before Jefferson or Madison were even born.

It shows that they didn't see it as UnConstitutional.

That's because it wasn't unConstitutional, but a great many did see it as against the ideals the nation was founded on, and we almost started out as 2 nations, or one nation and some colonies, over the issue of slavery.

You keep changing your positions and as such it's a waste of time talking with you. I never dismissed the fact that the Christians won over more secular-minded people, though not secular by today's standards, and thus helped usher in the Enlightenment. You are the one denying that, not me, and then you turn around and pretend you do acknowledge the fact religious liberty was first codified into law by religious minded people.Well, which is it?Were the colonies theocracies that gave way to the Enlightenment as you sometimes claimed, which is totally false by the way, or did the concepts of separation of Church and State originate and become codified into law by Christians?Which one was it?The simple fact is all of the liberties in the Bill of Rights were well-established before Madison and Jefferson were even born, and the entire Constitution in that area was based on what the colonies or states had already passed. There was nothing new added, except the division of powers and even that has it's origins elsewhere, though it shows some intelligence to adopt it.Moreover, the framers were somewhat weak on the idea of separation of Church and State whereas the Christians advocating it felt very strongly it was the only godly way for the government and Church to behave. The framers though let states have official establishments of religion, and dodged the issue really.But regardless, they at least passed limits on having a federal religion codified into law, though no restrictions on things like Congressional chaplains despite a few not liking it.The bottom line is the primary people originating and advancing the notion of religious liberty did so and established it here in the New World long before the Enlightenment. The battles were fought intellectually in the 15th centuries and prior, and in the New World, there was a chance to put the ideas into practice. The Enlightenment had nothing to do with that.The Enlightenment came after the concept of religious liberty was well-established in most of the colonies.

Was Massuchusetts a theocracy? You tell me. I already said they had an establishment of religion and did not favor freedom of religion like Rhode Island and Penn, but were they a theocracy?I think that term is bit loaded to say that. The colony as a whole was governed in a manner consistent with a non-theocracy.As far as individual cities, we can discuss that as well, but the minister was not necessarily the governor, as would be the case in a theocracy. More to the point, we are discussing the 13 colonies as colonies, not just settlements.

Sorry, but a theocracy is quite specific. Put it this way, we have some socialist programs and ideas in effect, but we are not communists. Communism is quite specific. So merely having some socialism does not make a nation communist (extreme socialist).Like all words, there are different meanings, but a nation is not a theocracy just because it has a state religion. A theocracy is one where the clergy rule as governors of the state, at least that's my understanding, as such, the colonies were not theocracies.I put forth a question to help deal with this. Is or was England a theocracy? England has a head of State that is head of the official established Church, and many things one would expect to see in a theocracy, but it is not ruled by the clergy.This message has been edited by randman, 12-05-2005 12:35 AM

Holmes, everything I am saying is basic historical fact, not even something controversial to people knowledgeable about this area of history. Rhode Island and Penn really did institute religious liberty codified into their charters. I am sorry that you think that is a revisionist. That just shows how poor an education you received in this one area. Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan are examples of theocracies. Saudi Arabia, a hugely oppressive Islamic nation and more so than Iran, is not a theocracy.My example of socialist ideas versus full-fledged communism can be helpful. Some colonies like Massuchusetts did not institute religious liberty and had an official establishment of religion, but they were still far from theocracies. This is where you are wrong. First off, there is considerable differences in what some founders wanted and what others wanted. Some like Patrick Henry were more favoring the notion of a Christian nation, and others like Jefferson, somewhat heathen, favored a less explicitly Christian state. George Washington favored a strong acknowledgement of God, a sense of religious duty to God, in the state, but separating the civil functions from the church functions. He was very religious, but perhaps not a Christian, or at least by some definitions.The model for religious liberty was in fact based on the colonies. It was nothing new, and had been around for over 150 years. Try to get that through your head. Separation of Church and State had been codified into law for well over 150 years in some colonies, which was long before the Enlightenment, and long before the founders were even born. That's where everyone got the idea from.Agreed or not?So the founders were not trying to move away from the way things were done in the colonies in this area, but merely trying to enshrine into law the liberties and rights Americans had come to expect already in the colonies. People already had religious liberty, except some limits in a few places like Massuchusetts.And when the Constitution was adopted, it did not ban Mass from having a state religion, but at the same time, that was not the norm.3. Well, democracy came from the Greeks, right, and Christians and everyone else knew about it long before the Enlightenment. On the subject of separation of Church and State, that concept came out of Christianity, first in Jesus' description of society having his followers and the world, and then groups like the Donatists that resisted the marriage of parts of Christianity with the Roman Empire, and various sects that formed from the believers that never went along with that. Additionally, monasticism was a reaction against that marriage, but eventually was incorporated largely into Catholicism, which was the new hybrid.Many Christians held to ideas such as separation of Church and State, the principles of volunteerism, etc,...These believers argued that not everyone was a Christian, but only those that chose to be, and so the State cannot properly enforce Christianity. They tended to reject infant baptism for the same reason.The Catholics and early Protestants thought of everyone borne in Christendom as already Christian and so the sword of the magistrate was acceptable for compelling righteousness. Basically, you had a fundamental difference in what each considered the Church and Christianity.The Evangelicals considered the world still ripe for evangelism. Men like Luther would not have thought of the Great Commision to preach the gospel in all the world as unfulfilled, but would say it was already fulfilled, and we are in a new era of Christendom.Anyway, as far as the colonies and the US, the idea of separation of Church and State stemmed from Anabaptist theology. The term was, in fact, one of their expressions, and Roger Williams and others specifically mentioned the Anabaptist theological views when Rhode Island was founded. William Penn who founded Pennsylvania, even more from the Anabaptist tradition as a Quaker, was laughed at by the establishment thinkers because they said it was impossible for religious liberty to work.So we have well over 1000 years of one group of people in Western history calling for separation of Church and State. We have the Anabtists during the Reformation and afterwards continually bringing the idea forward, and then 2 American colonies specifically founded on the idea of separation of Church and State more than 150 years prior to the US Constitution.Sure, the Enlightenment helped, but in terms of religious pluralism and religious liberty, they got their ideas from this branch of Christianity.So if you want to call separation a secular government (I think that's a misnomer since it's really a non-sectarian government that does not favor secularism), then yes, it is a historical fact that Christians came up with and instituted this idea.

Who's example? Christians' example, right?You just admitted that an ordained Christian minister founded these ideas in Rhode Island, though there were other Christians. That was over 150 years before the US Constitution. Ever read Roger Williams' theology at that time?He referred to Anabaptist theology.So the truth is the idea of religious liberty stemmed from the colonies, and was not a move towards something new by the time of the US Constitution. So England and Mass. at that time was no different than the Taliban, eh?I am sorry, but there is a difference between mere religious persecution and theocracy. A theocracy is where the ministers or clergy actually rule over the state. The fact that a state contains religious persecution does not make it a theocracy.Take Saudi Arabia. In terms of religious persecution of dissent, I'd say SA was the worst nation on earth, but it is a kingdom not a theocracy, as you have in Iran where the mullahs actually have final say over the government.

Holmes, there's a lot of confusion in your post. First, you suggest I am off on claiming religious liberty being codified into law in some colonial charters before the Enlightenment and refer to a wikapedia article. Note the reference to the 18th century, which is 1700s. Religious liberty and separation of Church and State, a rallying cry among Evangelicals of the 15th and 16th centuries particularly, was instituted in the 17th century in 1636 in Rhode Island and 1681 in Pennsylvania. You are off by about 100 years, but really off by over a 1000 years when you consider how long certain Christian sects argued for separation of Church and State, following Jesus' clear teaching on the matter.So if you are including the Age of Reason as the Enlightenment, that still did not begin until 1600 or a little later, and the demand for "separation of Church and State", that exact phrase, had been raging for over 100 years all over Europe as Anabaptists were put to death and tortured for daring to call for it.So the fact some others began to moderate, following the Evangelical lead, does not negate my point. Furthermore, as late as 1681, all of respectable soceity laughed at William Penn for thinking religious liberty would work in Penn. Whatever secular thinkers, or those in the Age of Reason type of thinking, all pretty much scoffed at the idea in a major way. So the idea these thinkers originated the idea or even promoted it back then is quite absurd. The discussion is not about the founding of the government in toto, but the founding of the idea of religious liberty, and it's just a matter of record that the concept in Western history stems from the Evangelical wing of Christianity, dating from the Anabaptists all the way back through various medeival sects to groups like the Donatists and other Christians prior to the 5th century and finally back to Jesus Himself who said His kingdom was not an earthly one and to render to Ceaser what is Ceaser's and to God what is God's. Were the Anabaptists of the 16th century and before part of the Enlightenment when they called for "separation of Church and State"? Actually a large part of the problem is that the scripture was not used by all sides in the debate, and the side that disagreed, the Protestants, but that agreed with sola scriptura, eventually adopted the Anabaptist position in this regard because the scripture is so unequivocal in this matter, and even within Catholicism, I think a large portion has now been swayed over to this basic tenet of Jesus Christ. Not separation of Church and State. The ancient documents were the gospels of Jesus Christ. Note the following comment in the wikapedia, which in this instance is correct despite the whole article being incomplete in many respects. Separation of church and state - Wikipedia You think I am taking the short view when I appeal to the original charter of the colonies, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, and to the Anabaptists the preceding 200 years, and then medieval sects, then the Donatists, then the words of Jesus, and then cite how it was before then? What the heck are you talking about? There wasn't a question about it. They compromised so Massuchusetts could be part of the USA. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. So His vision was one of separation. You've got it wrong. Roman Catholicism emerged as a hybrid of Christianity and the Roman Empire and began killing other Christians and anyone else they felt was heretical. The idea of religious liberty in terms that the state has no right to enforce religious law stems from Jesus Christ. No where have I hid this fact. In terms of Rhode Island and Penn, the ideas stemmed from their founders who took these ideas in turn from the Anabaptists.Clear? It was long-term Catholic dogma and early Protestant dogma, and incidentally it was the dogma of the more secular-minded people in the Age of Reason well until fairly near to the American Revolution. There was only one group pioneering this idea, and they paid for it with their blood. Too bad you cannot acknowledge your debt to their heroism. Where do you think Roger Williams, a minister of the gospel got those ideas, in 1636? Clue: It did not come from secular rationalists.Btw, no one disputes, except the claim of "most of these groups", that some Christians wanted to set up exclusively Christian communities. At the same time, these Protestants were in the process of being won over by Anabaptist theology.

Holmes, let's stop right there and get something straight. There were no secularists, enlightened thinkers appealing to ancient non-Christian traditions, in the 16th century advocating "separation of Church and State" but there were very large numbers of people that advocated this, and many of them killed for it. They were Christians called Anabaptists. If you think about it, you will connect the rebaptism idea with separation of Church and State.In the ancient world, there was an axiom of one religion for one people. That's how it was. Jesus and His followers are indeed the ones that came out with the idea this didn't need to be so. That's pure bull crap. When Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were founded, there was virtually no public acceptance outside of Evangelicals for separation of Church and State; no enlightened secularists whatsoever pushing for those ideas. No one is denying their ideas eventually won out, but to pretend the ideas originated with secularists is ridiculous. The Enlightenment helped, particularly after it accepted their enlightened wisdom.Moreover, they founded their ideas in a manner allowing them to grow long before the Enlightenment. I cannot stress this too much, but the Enlightenment had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, and it was not until much later that more secular-minded people ever jumped on the bandwagon. As such, it's just a fact they did not come up with the idea; nor were the primary people that established it. Why don't you provide a list of genuine "age of reason" thinkers during that time period? I am sorry, but evangelicals are considered fundamentalists by people like you. Now, it is true some high church folks, Catholics, and for a short season some Reformed folks didn't accept this, but the Reformed people got it fairly soon. What other concepts? This is their central concept in terms of government. Some were pacifists and things like that, but not all, and one reason those objections faded was because once being magistrate meant you didn't have to torture other Anabaptists, the impetus to not be part of the government faded. So the pagans never persecuted people, eh?Holmes, I don't have time to finish your post. Everything I have said about history is true. You choose to reject it because you don't want to credit Christians and Christianity, that's your business. The facts are the facts, and separation of Church and State stems from Jesus and the evangelical wing of Christianity.

RAZD, people with agendas like to twist words for their own meaning. If you mean religious establishment is a theocracy, then fine, but theocracy, as I was taught it, is where the priests rule and therefore no colony was a theocracy.It's funny but out of 3 quotes, all three seem to relate to Massuchessets. One only refers to New England, but certainly Rhode Island is in New England, and was explicitly founded on separation of Church and State, as was Pennsylvania. Of course, they were not founded as secular states, but as Christian ones.I don't see what you debating? Basic historical facts?

You sure sounded like you were shirking giving them credit to me. Glad you can admit what I have been saying all along; that this is the group that originated, at least in Western society, and fought for centuries for separation of Church and State. Note: "Baptist" is loose term here though. That's one definition. Guys like RAZD believe secularism means no government endorsement, acknowledgement or support for religion in general and thus thinks tax exemptions are unConstitutional. I don't believe separation of Church and State is necessarily a secular concept, nor that the US government was founded to be "secular." I think it's clear the US government is to be non-sectarian, and that is hugely different than secular as the term is used today. No, I am not confusing the terms, and maybe when you use "secular", you just mean non-sectarian, and thus have no problem with the government acknowledging God in thanksgiving, or tax exemptions for all churches, etc,...If that's the case, we agree. If by secular, you mean that the government cannot favor religion in general provided it is non-discriminaroty and non-sectarian, then I strongly disagree with your idea of secularism. The Anabaptists were not secularists. They were extremely devout groups of people, very religious. They would not be in favor, and are not today in favor, of taxing churches for example. Let's don't argue semantics. That makes them disciples of Jesus and Christians, if you ask me, not secularists. If secular means adopting Jesus' teachings in respect to the State, then fine, but most secularists today seem way off the reservation. For example, an Anabaptist would not oppose the State participating in acknowledging God and Jesus Christ. They just wouldn't want the State to coerce anyone to believe or to be a Christian. If you are the type of secularist, like them, that has no problem if we, as a nation, offer thanks to God, then good, but somehow I don't think that is the case. That's very misleading. The establishment and more secular minded people took the name of Christ and used religion to oppress. Not saying some were not also true believers in Catholicism, but the way I see it, the elite politicos, the rulers and intelligentsia, were on the side of the oppressors. Thankfully, after hundreds of years of butchering Christians like the Anabaptists, some from your side began to finally be won over and dropped their alliance with the Pope. That's how I see it.Keep in mind that one reason early Protestants made headway while the Anabaptists were still persecuted was that German princes protected the Protestants because they still allowed the a marriage of Church and State. It was the rulers, the elite, creating this marriage. But you completely ignore Jesus' teachings which were the primary source for Anabaptists and others bringing this topic to the fore. They were not doing this for political reasons for heavens sake. They were dying for this tenet. It had nothing to do with politics and economics.Now, when more secular-minded people saw it worked well in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania economically and politically, they finally relented and began to go along with what these Christians and the gospels had been saying for hundreds of years.The thing is, moreover, that I don't anyone that can credinly argue today that Jesus anywhere in his teachings, or His Person, would justify torturing and killing people to convert them. The killing stemmed from the Roman Empire, the State's influence, not the New Testament. That's where you are wrong. When the founders use the term "separation of Church and State" they are using an Anabaptist term with specific theological content. So whereas they were not necessarily Anabaptists, they did adopt their doctrine. I think you need then to take a much larger look at who the founders were; that it was much more than a handful of men, and also realize that the founders did not win the Revolution without the men supporting it, and more importantly, American independence was a byproduct of colonial independence in practical affairs, and as such, the founding of the USA has it's roots in the founding of the colonies. What a stupid statement! They met in Philadelphia, a city founded on Quaker ideals of religious liberty. They merely adopted what was in place at present. That's why some said we didn't even need a first amendment. They said everyone already has all these freedoms, and so if we point out some, it may suggest the others are not absolute. Yea well, the elite reasoned for hundreds of years, heck a few thousand years really, that the only way to keep the peace was to establish a sacral rite common to all the people. Finally, when some Christian followers of Jesus got the chance to show religious liberty worked, ONLY THEN was there an empirical observation. My beef is the others really didn't struggle at all. They just went from persecuting these groups to deciding, hey, maybe this isn't necessary after all. I am glad they went that direction certainly, but crediting them? Hardly.I will say the ideas of the Reformation, Age of Reason, etc,...helped throw off papal tyranny. Sure. And that there were great men like George Washington, who though deeply religious, was probably not a Christian, that helped immensely get these ideas into law formally by establishing the USA, but by the time of the Constitution, these things had overtaken much of the Western world in many regards.I think it's important to note that our form of government did not take on the secular bent of the French revolution, but that our revolution held to some concept of faithfulness to God, however one wished to interpret that. I don't know. Are we?I think without the examples of Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Anabaptist influence in the centuries prior, you would not have seen such a move to seperation of Church and State because the rulers all pretty much felt it was necessary.I also want to point out that even in places like Mass, there was a move towards separation of Church and State because neither the Pope, nor the State, had the right to control and appoint the clergy. Places like Rhode Island took this all the way, and adopted Anabaptist theology, which is why Baptists were generally Calvinist except in this area.So all over the colonies, in one form of another, there was a strong move towards separation of Church and State, even in places where there were discriminatory religious laws, and this occured while the establishment and rulers in Europe were rejecting such ideas. This process began long before the founders were borne, and as such, they grew up in this climate of religious liberty that had already been founded.So by the time the Enlightenment got into full swing, the issue of separation of Church and State had largely been settled, and even places with an official Church, such as England, began to moderate as well.I would say the Enlightenment represents an expansion of what the Christians accomplished in advocating freedom of conscience, not the other way around.

Holmes, you have devolved into arguing semantics. For example, you claim the Anabaptists were secularists, and so googling a definition for secularist, this is the first definition that came up. Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's QuestionsBased on that idea, it is hard to see how such strict religious sects can be secularists, and believe it or not, the above definition is true.It is true that secularists hold to keeping religious elements out of government, but then again, that's not the sort of separation of Church and State we have in America. Religious values and elements are allowed to influence government policy. There is no Constitutional prohibition of that.What is forbidden is the government from interfering in religious affairs.Imo, you owe me an apology for claiming I am misrepresenting the term "secularist."

Holmes, Jefferson's Danbury letter was written to the Baptists, right?Do I need to spell it out for you?