|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Church and State or Church and Society? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cypher227 Junior Member (Idle past 6326 days) Posts: 5 Joined: |
Doesn't it seem a bit odd that we're all hung up on Church and State, and the degree of separation between the two? The role that any religion plays in a government is a result of the role that religion plays in the society that set up the government. Both supporters and dissenters of the principle, "separation of Church and State," have lost themselves on a rather moot point. The State won its power struggle with the Church sometime between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
Those who oppose the separation of Church and State principle should be working to expand the role religion plays in society rather than getting bogged down attacking the precedence fortified position of the secularists. Secularists should also be focusing on the role of religion in society, as some of the most sinister tyranny can come from a pressure hidden behind a crowd too large to prosecute. Edited by cypher227, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18712 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
Lets get your topic rolling by my asking you what you know or have heard about the idea of the separation of Church and State.
What ideas are you in favor of? Do you believe that beliefs should be included in governmental decision making? In education? In law?
cypher227 writes: The role that any religion plays in a government is a result of the role that religion plays in the society that set up the government. We once had a topic here concerning the qualifications of leaders in public office and whether their beliefs could be a hindrance to unbiased critically examined ability to govern.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hello, cypher, and welcome to EvC.
The State won its power struggle with the Church sometime between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The concept about the separation between Church and State has little to do with "power struggles" between Church and State. The issue refers to when Church and State are intertwined and the distinctions between the two are not clear -- the Church has a direct role in government, and/or the State has power over the administration and tenets of the Church. Since the U.S. does not have an established, government sponsored Church, in this country separation of Church and State refers to issues involving the government either promoting particular religious practices or beliefs or attempts to restrict particular religious practices. Edited by Chiroptera, : clarification In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cypher227 Junior Member (Idle past 6326 days) Posts: 5 Joined: |
Phat, my personal opinions concerning Church and State aren't relevant to this thread. I am in favor of a separation, but I think both sides take it too far in their own direction. My point is that Church and State is being focused on far too much, and that the issue of Church and Society is much more important. Again, I would be against the presence of a Church in society at all in theory, but in practice we have to find a solution much more realistic. To be honest, I'm not sure what solution there is without compromising our free society.
Chiroptera, the rise of secular Republics, starting with the United States, was a result of the power struggle that had occurred between the Church and the various Monarchs of Europe (the State) for centuries before that. The Church and the Monarch essentially wore each other down until various Enlightenment Ideas were not crushed hy either power as they emerged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
...I think both sides take it too far in their own direction. How can it be taken too far in the direction of total separation? Once Church and State are totally separated, then there is no direction further one can take it -- and why would that be bad, or bad to work towards? -
...in practice we have to find a solution much more realistic. What's unrealistic about a total separation if Church and State? -
Chiroptera, the rise of secular Republics, starting with the United States, was a result of the power struggle that had occurred between the Church and the various Monarchs of Europe (the State) for centuries before that. The Church and the Monarch essentially wore each other down until various Enlightenment Ideas were not crushed hy either power as they emerged. Huh. That's not what I get out of my reading of history. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Doesn't it seem a bit odd that we're all hung up on Church and State, and the degree of separation between the two? I find it especially strange that the term "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found on any founding document, and yet is one of the loudest mantra's of the nation. I find it even more strange that the term, coined by Jefferson in a personal letter, should have been so manipulated to mean precisely the opposite of its intended purpose. A Baptist group, known as the Danbury Baptists, heard a rumor alleging that the US was planning on adopting a state religion. Because of their English ties, the last thing they wanted was another state sanctioned religion to be impede their right to freely worship as they saw fit. Jefferson responds to them in his famous letter assuaging them. He consoles them by, first, debunking a beguiling rumor, and secondly, that he and those of his consortium intend to make sure that religion won't influence the state, and the state won't interfere a religion.
The role that any religion plays in a government is a result of the role that religion plays in the society that set up the government. Both supporters and dissenters of the principle, "separation of Church and State," have lost themselves on a rather moot point. The State won its power struggle with the Church sometime between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Very true. But there is a bit of a dichotomy here that exists even to this day. The tone of the nation, though rapidly dwindling, stems from four sources of inspiration: Athens, Rome, Jerusalem, and London. Those four cities, more than any other, have helped influence the foundational support of America. Athens for its philosophical influence. Rome for its judicial system. Jerusalem for its spiritual foundation. And London for its sociological and socioeconomic influence. We are allowed to talk about three of the cities influence in the public square. But one city is always stricken from the record. You smell what I'm stepping in? Why do you suppose that is?
Those who oppose the separation of Church and State principle should be working to expand the role religion plays in society rather than getting bogged down attacking the precedence fortified position of the secularists. I am a Christian. And I think the Amendment in question is a pivotal one that wholeheartedly agree with, because it conforms to free will and is conducive to a healthy society. My only issue is that the sides are not equal. One is more highly protected than the other. I'm sure you can guess which one. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Added subtitle "It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 1157 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
NJ writes: I find it especially strange that the term "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found on any founding document, and yet is one of the loudest mantra's of the nation. I find it even more strange that the term, coined by Jefferson in a personal letter, should have been so manipulated to mean precisely the opposite of its intended purpose. quote: Let's break this down. No law respecting the establishment of religion. That means no establishment of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. as the state religion. This is obviously a statement against having the Anglican Church as the state religion as is the case with the nation they sought to separate from, namely the UK. Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This means that all people are allowed to worship as they please, including the religions of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. This is obviously a statement against the persecution of Jews, Catholics, and Deists that was prevalent in the UK at the time, or the persecution of Jews, Protestants, and Deists that was prevalent in France or Spain at the time. Here is why, from Deism - Wikipedia
quote: I don't know what the remark "should have been so manipulated to mean precisely the opposite of its intended purpose" is supposed to mean but given your lack of knowledge about history, indeed even your seemingly perpetual misrepresentation of history, I may well imagine it is as usual - flat out wrong. Edited by anglagard, : Add continental oppression. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1575 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
My only issue is that the sides are not equal. One is more highly protected than the other. I'm sure you can guess which one. Broadly speaking, the First Amendment protects the state from interference from religion and protects religion from interference from the state. I'm quite certain that it's your opinion that the state is "more highly protected" from religious interference than religion is from state interference. Please support your opinion with concrete examples of the state interfering with religion. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 160 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Wasn't there a thread where no one was able to show a single law that restricted the rights of Christians?
Please support your opinion with concrete examples of the state interfering with religion. Don't you think that if the state actually interfered with religion one or more examples would be shown? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2834 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Athens for its philosophical influence
Does the fact that our government is based off of the Roman Republic escape your notice? Athens (and several other greek cities) had a direct democracy. You'll notice that the US is a republic, right? The separation and balance of powers comes from the roman republic constitution.
Rome for its judicial system
Does the fact that US law is largely based off of English Common Law escape your notice? Can you name a single roman judicial custom that has significance in the US legal code and system? Can you also separate that Roman source from the English source (because otherwise it may as well be English, given that Rome did control england for a short while)?
Jerusalem for its spiritual foundation
Um, isn't the head of the cathlic church in Rome? (technically the Vatican City). And you know, the cathlic church was the only church in western europe until Martin Luther (yes, there was the Eastern Orthodox, but you need to go to the former Byzantinze Empire to find where it has influence). The only thing that Jerusalem has in any terms of importance is that Christ was there and that medieval europeans tried to conquer it. I would put rome (and then protestantism) as the "spiritual" foundations of the country. The only thing you have right is the part about London being the source of our economic and social attitudes. (and this would really only hold true if you ignore the influx of immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries) By the way, I didn't know you were a dairy farmer. No wonder there's the smell of manure.Ah, and I do realize that you are consolidating whole countries and cultures into single cities for simplicity's sake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6190 Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I find it especially strange that the term "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found on any founding document, and yet is one of the loudest mantra's of the nation. I find it even more strange that the term, coined by Jefferson in a personal letter, should have been so manipulated to mean precisely the opposite of its intended purpose. Please refer to James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/rel_lib/memorial.html), Second Reason to "remonstrate against the said Bill [entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,"]" (emphasis is mine):
quote: The said bill by Patrick Henry was proposed in the Virginia Legislature to use tax money to pay ministers and preachers, this in response to his constituents having complained to him about the decline of public morality, much as the Religious Right does nowadays. Thomas Jefferson's faction was able to delay a vote on it until the next sessionand then persuaded James Madison to write a pamphlet opposing the bill which they then distributed throughout the state. That pamphlet, A Memorial and Remonstrance, proved so effective that when the State Legislature reconvened, Henry's bill was dropped without even being brought to a vote and instead Thomas Jefferson's Religious Liberty bill was voted into law. This was in 1785, a few years before the pamphlet's author, James Madison, drafted the First Amendment. As indicated by the bolded text above, Madison believed in and was arguing for church-state separation, even though he did not use that exact wording, and this interpretation is strongly supported by the rest of the pamphlet. I believe that, in the parlance of the Radical Religious Right in the 1980's, this indicates that the original intent of the drafter of the First Amendment was indeed church-state separation. Jefferson and Madison were life-long friends who, through the rest of their lives, would retire from public life only to draw each other back into it. It should come as no surprise that Jefferson would repeat Madison's expression, only this time calling a "wall" instead of "the great Barrier".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I find it especially strange that the term "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found on any founding document.... Me, I find it irrelevant. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I don't know what the remark "should have been so manipulated to mean precisely the opposite of its intended purpose" is supposed to mean but given your lack of knowledge about history, indeed even your seemingly perpetual misrepresentation of history, I may well imagine it is as usual - flat out wrong What you have listed above is all perfectly fine and good. What I am referring to is the special interest groups who manipulate the First Am to benefit the State, and do what ever they can to malign the Church. I mean, the ACLU is at it again. A coach bowed his head with his team in prayer, which he is more than welcomed to do. He didn't suggest to the team that they pray, he simply bowed his head with them, and the ACLU, as always, had their little hissy fit. The coach is a citizen of the US, who is granted the right to worship freely. The First Amendment applies to government employees, in the capacity of their duty, which prohibits them from soliciting or proselytizing to a specific religion and endorses that religion under the banner of their institution. For instance, I work for the government. I have the right to be a Christian all day long. What I don't have the right to do is board a vessel and hand out literature about how the US government loves Jesus. I can't do that. I am prohibited from that. But I, just like the coach, can worship as we see fit. Had the coach led the prayer and said that everyone has to pray or they'll be kicked off the team, then yeah, that would abridge the Bill of Rights. But since that didn't happen, why do special interest groups harass the general public in their war against the religious? "It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1575 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The canard that the ACLU is against religion has already been given the lie in this thread.
Again, I ask for concrete examples of the state interfering with religion. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025