Reply to a Comment on Separation of Church and State
This is in answer to a comment on “Remembering Religious Liberty” (from 1/21/06.)
Mom, here is my reply to your inputs. By all means, if you have more to rebut, don’t hesitate. The more communication on this subject the better.
Yes, both the church and the state each have their own realm, kind of like two gangs that claim the same turf! They both have laid out their jurisdictions. In answer to your first paragraph: the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech for every citizen, not every Christian. If you are both, that’s good; if you are only the citizen, as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned, that’s equally good. Should you have more rights because you are a Christian? Not from the Bill of Right’s point of view. All that counts to get this civil freedom is that you be a citizen (generally speaking, for even foreigners and immigrants should be treated with civility). Being a Christian gives you its own freedoms and privileges, through the Holy Spirit, not through the United States Constitution. So if a non-Christian citizen expresses that he doesn’t want you speaking of Christ publicly, you have three choices: stop speaking (in which case if that person were using vulgar or insulting language he should stop if you ask), keep talking and risk having the police called out, or continue to talk in the face of the police and be taken to jail. I’ve never studied criminal law, but this is how I’ve come to view reality.
The Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of citizens, not Christians. Christians can be heard in our political life, in the capacity of a citizen, and they should also be recognized only as such. The Christian is only another citizen in the eyes of the Constitution, as long as that Christian hasn’t squandered the rights of freedom. If in the name of Jesus, he has hurt or damaged another citizen or citizen’s property, then that Christian loses some citizen rights. How many is up to a civil judge. If he has murdered and then, in prison, has come to Christ, as a citizen he may lose his life, for the judge bears not the sword in vain. As a new Christian, he knows all scripture is inspired by God, and he can accept the authority of Genesis 9:6. He also has hope in a resurrection.
As far as speaking of Christ in the public square: that is not a problem, as long as city ordinances allow for it. If public evangelism is impromptu and the public don’t appreciate being preached to, then they have the right to ask you to stop or to call the police; then you’re back to the original three choices, stop because of the people, stop because of the police, or be incarcerated. (Many of our Protestant forefathers were imprisoned for what they said.) Sidewalk witnessing for Christ has never been a problem because the other person can just keep on walking if he or she doesn’t want to listen; and they shouldn’t be harrassed. In the restaurant or business establishment, we can speak of Christ until the establishment deems that the religious activity is ruining its business and then, since the property belongs to them, the person preaching Christ or any other cause must obey the requests of the owner. In short, our civil liberties must not unduly infringe on the civil liberties of others, even if, and especially because, we are Christians.
In your 2nd paragraph you stated that churches can lose their tax exempt status if they engage in political matters. I believe that is only fair, since it then becomes a political place of meeting. The Bill of Rights concerns itself with civil issues. As citizens, we have the right to assemble peaceably to redress grievances on civil matters. But any church, who under religious guise, receives tax exemption because it is a religious organization, but then engages in political instruction or rallying, has broken the civil trust, and will reap the civil repercussions. If Moslems were using their mosques to redress civil matters, should they enjoy a tax exempt status? Why should Christians get preferential treatment? Because we were here first? What is right is what is important, regardless who got here first.
Why would a true Christian ever want to be treated preferentially, when it is enough to know that Christ looks down upon him in a special way because of their relationship? This world has nothing to offer for a true Christian. His only longing is for that better country, wherein dwelleth Jesus and His righteousness. Otherwise, he glories in tribulation, knowing that tribulation works patience. Rom. 5:3. Paul captured every Christian’s deepest desire for Christ, “That I many know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings.” Phil 3:10. In the face of the loss of every civil right, the true Christian will shine brighter because of the prospect of the faith that hardship will build in him. Mom, you mentioned John the Baptist being thrown into a dungeon and being beheaded for speaking out against the prevailing corruption. This illustrates clearly what Paul was saying to the Philippians. So goes the plight of many of God’s servants. (See Heb. 11:35-39).
Does this make us feel robbed? Is this giving up the prized place of privilege we’ve enjoyed in our country? It shouldn’t. This has been the agreed upon terms of the Gospel when we first accepted Christ: to take up His cross. And equality between citizens, irrespective of religion, is also in accordance with the agreed-upon terms of the United States Constitution when it was ratified. And it has worked so well and placed us at the head and not the tail in the world pecking order. It has provided for us a better country or empire than has ever been experienced since the beginning of nations. Between our Republican government and Protestantism, the pace of idolatrous paganism has been greatly retarded, and a peaceful existence has been our heritage to own and our gift to the world.
In your 5th paragraph, under Article VII, you say that religion was built into the Constitution as exemplified by the useage, “in the Year of our Lord….” I believe that this is simply an example of 18th century propriety. That was their custom for official writing of treatises and other dated documents.
In your 8th paragraph, you cite, in Article I Section 7, the Sunday deadline exemption for passing a bill in Congress, as evidence that the Constitution is inherently Christian. The reference to Sunday was not for direction concerning sabbath-keeping, but out of convenience of the common religious day. The purpose of the new civil government was not to disrupt or in any way hinder the normal operation of the “predominant” religion’s day of worship. As the Constitution is a “living” document, this is a principle that is pliable and could be reapplied to the 7th day Sabbath or any other day, if need be.
Our laws are just. They come from a moral populace, due to religion going unhampered. And as long as religion stays separate from government, like Old Testament Israel was required to remain different from the way the surrounding nations made the king the high priest as well, it will retain its purity and will offer pure, noble, and moral people to be citizens and leaders of God’s future heavenly government and the holy Law of His government, and to be subjects to obey their present earthly government and protect the Constitution undergirding it. Yet our civil laws, as just as they are, stop at the boundary of the heart, the seat of morality. Thus a citizen need not love obedience or love his neighbor, he need only obey as a courtesy to another citizen, because they should equally enjoy the same freedom. Christians love people and don’t look at them as citizens or immigrants. They serve them all. Our government doesn’t want to have to beat everyone into submission. So true Christians greatly benefit the civil government because the peace brought to them by the Holy Spirit is passed on to others, thus adding joy and stability to civil life. Far from being the opiate of the people, Bible religion would give the people a life that, with only strict laws and constant threats of corporal and capital punishment, would otherwise become depressing and oppressive.
Our country’s forefathers trusted religion to do this. Religion and spirituality, independently operating in its own sphere would aid the government in the order and happiness of the people. Yet, although receiving benefit from spirituality, the government is righteous in remaining hands-off with regard to religion. In this light, I agree with your statement, “As long as each recognizes its own jurisdiction, mere religious activity in itself does not threaten government authority.” Law is requisite for life. But spirituality improves life under the law! When working together they make the perfect living arrangement. We have it so good in the United States!
Mom, you ended this paragraph saying, “Children are compelled by the State, since public school is compulsory, to be taught ‘alternate life styles’, when the vast number of parents are totally against this being taught to their children. The parents are not consulted. There are other examples, one being the ‘theory’ of evolution.” However, public school is not compulsory. Private or home schooling is another alternative. I’m not sure what you mean by public schools teaching “alternate life styles.” Homosexuality? Drug-use? Self-destructive behavior? I went to public schools and have had a lot of dealing with my children’s public schools and I’ve never seen destructive lifestyles taught from any curriculum. This is not to say that students don’t teach each other alternate lifestyles because of what they witness and hear on television and radio. And yes, evolution is taught. An atheistic view of the scriptures and God are espoused; but in order to protect against that, if we teach our children what’s right, in the home, they won’t be affected by human theories like evolution and atheism. I came out of public school a determined creationist, thanks to my home training and church teaching. The alternative of private education is not inexpensive, but my one year in Christian education was a very good experience. And I worked hard to pay my share of the costs. If parents and children must suffer together for the children to have a Christian education, so be it. Christianity and Protestantism were forged out of suffering. Just such tough religion George Washington envisioned in America. “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer.” 2Tim. 3:12.
In your 11th paragraph, you ask, “Where does this idea come from that the Church should never weigh in on the State?” To that I ask, Why must the church think it need ever put pressure on the state? The early Christians did not die to reform the government of Imperial Rome, but to refuse the forced state religion of paganism. The church of Christ does not need the aid of the state because it has its own resources and firepower from Christ and their commission is not to reform governments, but to reform religion and convert souls. This would be different if our nation were a theocracy. But it is not. The closest thing today to a theocracy is each individual denomination’s organization. They are theocracies and any Christian Elijah can march in and put pressure on a denomination as much as the Spirit leads him or her to do.
You also state, “I understand the reason why there should never be a State Religion,” as in one of the Protestant denominations. And you say that no one is trying to make one of them a state religion, and that’s true. But don’t we hear so many today claim America is a Christian nation? They may not want an individual denomination to saddle up next to Uncle Sam, but they believe Christianity should be our state religion. And they say, If any Moslems don’t like it, they can go back to wherever they came from! Are these the sentiments of a truly converted Christian? Would Jesus ever say or intimate such a thing? No, this is not the Spirit of Christ. He never pushed anyone away, and it was His inspiration that led Paul to use tact and every loving, Spirit-filled method to lead everyone he could to Christ.
Continuing with the 11th paragraph, Hitler may or may not have been influenced by Martin Luther, I don’t know. But one thing I feel certain: the religious regime that gains control of the United States government will lead this country into something much worse than Hitler did in Germany. Hitler was a non-religious man. Bigoted religionists have always done much worse, as you stated. The Inquisition of the Dark Ages gives us a good idea what to expect. One hundred million to one hundred fifty million lives were lost to that so called “holy” institution reinstituted just recently by Pope Benedict.
What can a Christian do when his heart is vexed by what he sees in his country? He can pray to Christ and then work his prayers. Nothing is too hard for the Lord. And the Christian’s first duty is for the conversion of souls. Some may say, “But that is slow work! We have too much to get done! We have a whole generation being influenced to doubt God and leave the church!” God knows how to speed things up. He has His ways. He brings efficiency to His work that neither we nor government assistance can provide, much less see. Should we work to reform civil laws and decisions that affect the moral fiber of society? Yes, like Daniel in Babylon, as a citizen, a praying citizen. Perhaps, God will reward our efforts in government, or company, or even military command policy. But if He doesn’t choose to do so, we can keep praying and working as a citizen at work or in the political arena, and as a Christian in the home, church, and neighborhood.
Only let us make sure we don’t cross spirituality and religion with politics and government, and thus desecrate both.
Mom, here is my reply to your inputs. By all means, if you have more to rebut, don’t hesitate. The more communication on this subject the better.
Yes, both the church and the state each have their own realm, kind of like two gangs that claim the same turf! They both have laid out their jurisdictions. In answer to your first paragraph: the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech for every citizen, not every Christian. If you are both, that’s good; if you are only the citizen, as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned, that’s equally good. Should you have more rights because you are a Christian? Not from the Bill of Right’s point of view. All that counts to get this civil freedom is that you be a citizen (generally speaking, for even foreigners and immigrants should be treated with civility). Being a Christian gives you its own freedoms and privileges, through the Holy Spirit, not through the United States Constitution. So if a non-Christian citizen expresses that he doesn’t want you speaking of Christ publicly, you have three choices: stop speaking (in which case if that person were using vulgar or insulting language he should stop if you ask), keep talking and risk having the police called out, or continue to talk in the face of the police and be taken to jail. I’ve never studied criminal law, but this is how I’ve come to view reality.
The Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of citizens, not Christians. Christians can be heard in our political life, in the capacity of a citizen, and they should also be recognized only as such. The Christian is only another citizen in the eyes of the Constitution, as long as that Christian hasn’t squandered the rights of freedom. If in the name of Jesus, he has hurt or damaged another citizen or citizen’s property, then that Christian loses some citizen rights. How many is up to a civil judge. If he has murdered and then, in prison, has come to Christ, as a citizen he may lose his life, for the judge bears not the sword in vain. As a new Christian, he knows all scripture is inspired by God, and he can accept the authority of Genesis 9:6. He also has hope in a resurrection.
As far as speaking of Christ in the public square: that is not a problem, as long as city ordinances allow for it. If public evangelism is impromptu and the public don’t appreciate being preached to, then they have the right to ask you to stop or to call the police; then you’re back to the original three choices, stop because of the people, stop because of the police, or be incarcerated. (Many of our Protestant forefathers were imprisoned for what they said.) Sidewalk witnessing for Christ has never been a problem because the other person can just keep on walking if he or she doesn’t want to listen; and they shouldn’t be harrassed. In the restaurant or business establishment, we can speak of Christ until the establishment deems that the religious activity is ruining its business and then, since the property belongs to them, the person preaching Christ or any other cause must obey the requests of the owner. In short, our civil liberties must not unduly infringe on the civil liberties of others, even if, and especially because, we are Christians.
In your 2nd paragraph you stated that churches can lose their tax exempt status if they engage in political matters. I believe that is only fair, since it then becomes a political place of meeting. The Bill of Rights concerns itself with civil issues. As citizens, we have the right to assemble peaceably to redress grievances on civil matters. But any church, who under religious guise, receives tax exemption because it is a religious organization, but then engages in political instruction or rallying, has broken the civil trust, and will reap the civil repercussions. If Moslems were using their mosques to redress civil matters, should they enjoy a tax exempt status? Why should Christians get preferential treatment? Because we were here first? What is right is what is important, regardless who got here first.
Why would a true Christian ever want to be treated preferentially, when it is enough to know that Christ looks down upon him in a special way because of their relationship? This world has nothing to offer for a true Christian. His only longing is for that better country, wherein dwelleth Jesus and His righteousness. Otherwise, he glories in tribulation, knowing that tribulation works patience. Rom. 5:3. Paul captured every Christian’s deepest desire for Christ, “That I many know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings.” Phil 3:10. In the face of the loss of every civil right, the true Christian will shine brighter because of the prospect of the faith that hardship will build in him. Mom, you mentioned John the Baptist being thrown into a dungeon and being beheaded for speaking out against the prevailing corruption. This illustrates clearly what Paul was saying to the Philippians. So goes the plight of many of God’s servants. (See Heb. 11:35-39).
Does this make us feel robbed? Is this giving up the prized place of privilege we’ve enjoyed in our country? It shouldn’t. This has been the agreed upon terms of the Gospel when we first accepted Christ: to take up His cross. And equality between citizens, irrespective of religion, is also in accordance with the agreed-upon terms of the United States Constitution when it was ratified. And it has worked so well and placed us at the head and not the tail in the world pecking order. It has provided for us a better country or empire than has ever been experienced since the beginning of nations. Between our Republican government and Protestantism, the pace of idolatrous paganism has been greatly retarded, and a peaceful existence has been our heritage to own and our gift to the world.
In your 5th paragraph, under Article VII, you say that religion was built into the Constitution as exemplified by the useage, “in the Year of our Lord….” I believe that this is simply an example of 18th century propriety. That was their custom for official writing of treatises and other dated documents.
In your 8th paragraph, you cite, in Article I Section 7, the Sunday deadline exemption for passing a bill in Congress, as evidence that the Constitution is inherently Christian. The reference to Sunday was not for direction concerning sabbath-keeping, but out of convenience of the common religious day. The purpose of the new civil government was not to disrupt or in any way hinder the normal operation of the “predominant” religion’s day of worship. As the Constitution is a “living” document, this is a principle that is pliable and could be reapplied to the 7th day Sabbath or any other day, if need be.
Our laws are just. They come from a moral populace, due to religion going unhampered. And as long as religion stays separate from government, like Old Testament Israel was required to remain different from the way the surrounding nations made the king the high priest as well, it will retain its purity and will offer pure, noble, and moral people to be citizens and leaders of God’s future heavenly government and the holy Law of His government, and to be subjects to obey their present earthly government and protect the Constitution undergirding it. Yet our civil laws, as just as they are, stop at the boundary of the heart, the seat of morality. Thus a citizen need not love obedience or love his neighbor, he need only obey as a courtesy to another citizen, because they should equally enjoy the same freedom. Christians love people and don’t look at them as citizens or immigrants. They serve them all. Our government doesn’t want to have to beat everyone into submission. So true Christians greatly benefit the civil government because the peace brought to them by the Holy Spirit is passed on to others, thus adding joy and stability to civil life. Far from being the opiate of the people, Bible religion would give the people a life that, with only strict laws and constant threats of corporal and capital punishment, would otherwise become depressing and oppressive.
Our country’s forefathers trusted religion to do this. Religion and spirituality, independently operating in its own sphere would aid the government in the order and happiness of the people. Yet, although receiving benefit from spirituality, the government is righteous in remaining hands-off with regard to religion. In this light, I agree with your statement, “As long as each recognizes its own jurisdiction, mere religious activity in itself does not threaten government authority.” Law is requisite for life. But spirituality improves life under the law! When working together they make the perfect living arrangement. We have it so good in the United States!
Mom, you ended this paragraph saying, “Children are compelled by the State, since public school is compulsory, to be taught ‘alternate life styles’, when the vast number of parents are totally against this being taught to their children. The parents are not consulted. There are other examples, one being the ‘theory’ of evolution.” However, public school is not compulsory. Private or home schooling is another alternative. I’m not sure what you mean by public schools teaching “alternate life styles.” Homosexuality? Drug-use? Self-destructive behavior? I went to public schools and have had a lot of dealing with my children’s public schools and I’ve never seen destructive lifestyles taught from any curriculum. This is not to say that students don’t teach each other alternate lifestyles because of what they witness and hear on television and radio. And yes, evolution is taught. An atheistic view of the scriptures and God are espoused; but in order to protect against that, if we teach our children what’s right, in the home, they won’t be affected by human theories like evolution and atheism. I came out of public school a determined creationist, thanks to my home training and church teaching. The alternative of private education is not inexpensive, but my one year in Christian education was a very good experience. And I worked hard to pay my share of the costs. If parents and children must suffer together for the children to have a Christian education, so be it. Christianity and Protestantism were forged out of suffering. Just such tough religion George Washington envisioned in America. “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer.” 2Tim. 3:12.
In your 11th paragraph, you ask, “Where does this idea come from that the Church should never weigh in on the State?” To that I ask, Why must the church think it need ever put pressure on the state? The early Christians did not die to reform the government of Imperial Rome, but to refuse the forced state religion of paganism. The church of Christ does not need the aid of the state because it has its own resources and firepower from Christ and their commission is not to reform governments, but to reform religion and convert souls. This would be different if our nation were a theocracy. But it is not. The closest thing today to a theocracy is each individual denomination’s organization. They are theocracies and any Christian Elijah can march in and put pressure on a denomination as much as the Spirit leads him or her to do.
You also state, “I understand the reason why there should never be a State Religion,” as in one of the Protestant denominations. And you say that no one is trying to make one of them a state religion, and that’s true. But don’t we hear so many today claim America is a Christian nation? They may not want an individual denomination to saddle up next to Uncle Sam, but they believe Christianity should be our state religion. And they say, If any Moslems don’t like it, they can go back to wherever they came from! Are these the sentiments of a truly converted Christian? Would Jesus ever say or intimate such a thing? No, this is not the Spirit of Christ. He never pushed anyone away, and it was His inspiration that led Paul to use tact and every loving, Spirit-filled method to lead everyone he could to Christ.
Continuing with the 11th paragraph, Hitler may or may not have been influenced by Martin Luther, I don’t know. But one thing I feel certain: the religious regime that gains control of the United States government will lead this country into something much worse than Hitler did in Germany. Hitler was a non-religious man. Bigoted religionists have always done much worse, as you stated. The Inquisition of the Dark Ages gives us a good idea what to expect. One hundred million to one hundred fifty million lives were lost to that so called “holy” institution reinstituted just recently by Pope Benedict.
What can a Christian do when his heart is vexed by what he sees in his country? He can pray to Christ and then work his prayers. Nothing is too hard for the Lord. And the Christian’s first duty is for the conversion of souls. Some may say, “But that is slow work! We have too much to get done! We have a whole generation being influenced to doubt God and leave the church!” God knows how to speed things up. He has His ways. He brings efficiency to His work that neither we nor government assistance can provide, much less see. Should we work to reform civil laws and decisions that affect the moral fiber of society? Yes, like Daniel in Babylon, as a citizen, a praying citizen. Perhaps, God will reward our efforts in government, or company, or even military command policy. But if He doesn’t choose to do so, we can keep praying and working as a citizen at work or in the political arena, and as a Christian in the home, church, and neighborhood.
Only let us make sure we don’t cross spirituality and religion with politics and government, and thus desecrate both.
posted by David | 9:25 PM
15 Comments:
As a member of the "idolatrous pagan" population in this country, I thank you for your very open-minded opinion. There are those of us, believe it or not, that don't want to hear ANYTHING about your "god". And its not that we are uninformed. Its kinda like "informed consent" in the medical field. The information is provided in a matter that the patient can understand and then the patient should always be given the freedom to choose what he/she desires, whether the doctor, the nurse, or the whole fucking hospital think its wrong. Freedom of choice. That is what our country was founded on. Freedom to not be bothered. Maybe people like your mother should behave more like God did in the first book of your Bible, Adam and Eve were given the free choice whether or not to take the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. No one was standing in front of the tree, or chasing them around the garden of eden telling them what they should do. Free will. That is what separates us from the animals. And that - free will - that my friend is the only way any person can accept the gift of salvation from your god. So its actually something that your mother should celebrate. Live and let live. You don't see any of us forcing her to follow the phases of the moon, or use our tarot cards, or learn to cast our spells. If you are 47 it seems very sad that she could possibly have lived in this world this long, this culturally vast and wonderful world, and still be that close-minded.
Fallen Angel - recovering Seventh-Day Adventist (who will NEVER fall off my pagan wagon)
FallenAngel,
I've tried several times to publish your comment on this post, but it wouldn't go to the post. So I will answer your comment and hope others will understand something of what you wrote.
I appreciate your comments. They definitely were genuine and heartfelt.
"Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." "Truth can afford to be fair." "No true doctrine ever lost anything by close investigation." These are pretty famous quotes that float around my subculture, the Seventh-day Adventists. Thank you for saying my post was open-minded. I really take that as a compliment. I hope you continue to feel that way. I also want to say that I love and respect my mother, as you do yours. So I'm glad for her comments and welcome more from her. I also hope to hear from you again and anyone else you know.
Its true that free will was in the Garden of Eden, at the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But free will does not mean unrestrained will. There actually was a barrier at the tree--It was the warning that to eat would have dire consequences.
So we have free will--to choose life or death. And everyone has that freedom. I can't force you and you can't force me. But an informed choice is primo. As your brother, I should feel indebted to tell you about a cliff you are about to plunge over if you drive up that road, for example. And you should do the same for me. I need all the guidance I can get.
So if you desire to deal with the devil, and I care about you, I will warn you. You still retain the freedom to choose as you please, but its my duty to warn you if I see a danger, and then leave it at that. I can't recommend Congress make a law to stop you. But you are warned and then if you scrap it all and go on to deal with the devil you will reap the harvest.
By the same token, if I am a Christian hyprocrite and bigot, and you show me my error, but I think I am on the right track and am just lying to myself, the name will not save me from reaping the consequences of my hypocrisy and religious bigotry.
And if religious bigots create a law to force everyone to be Christians, the results will be dire indeed. No one should be a Christian or be forced to go to church on Sunday, if they don't want to and this is what the first ammendment was all about. And a truly converted Christian would never attempt such a law. I'm sorry if you don't like Christians because of our bad track record, but Christ would never do 99% of what you see Christians do. Please don't be mad at Him for what Christians do. I know that's not easy, but He has taken the blame for way too much.
Thanks again for you input. Please don't let this be the last time you write.
There we go, FallenAngel, I finally figured out what I did wrong and your comment is published.
David,
I read your post with great interest. Just a couple of brief comments. I am not sure I understand your reference to France's Reign of Terror, as in essence I have always thought that to be the movement of a godless nation, which is the opposite of what you picked it for as an example.
Also you make no reference to natural law in what the forefathers of our country did. I agree with you totally that they wanted a federal government to be totally free of sectarianism. Thomas Jefferson wanted the country to be free for all "the Joo, the Mooslim, and the Hindoo."
But also Christianity was the underpining of the constitution. The Magna Carta, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbs were central to their understanding of what a free government should be like.
Just a thought or two from my summer readings.
Thanks for a great post, even though it wasn't to me!
Pat
Hello again Pat, its always a pleasure to hear from you. Thank you for your objectivity and generosity. I referred to France as an example of unrestrained vengeance. Yes, they were premised upon atheism, but it was the uncontrollable rage of a despairing people that I see coming if forced obedience to morality is laid upon America, and then upon the whole world under America's care. The greatest tribulation ever witnessed will be the gift of forced morality, one that if those days weren't shortened, no flesh would be saved. That may sound drastic, but I hope not illogical. Those days are coming, and I see the loss of freedom of conscience to be the start of it all.
I must admit I'm not up on the subject of natural law. Please fill me in if you have the time. I looked at my encyclopedia and it refers at one point to the "self-evident" aspects of those certain "unalienable rights." Some believed that the natural propensities of man in his fallen state should constitute the law of the land. Others preferred to use human nature before the fall for a standard. Let me know what your thoughts are on this subject, if you would.
I can see Christianity having an underpinning to our Constitution, but the laws of our justice system include more than the one source of Christianity, as is depicted in the sculpture over the entrance to the Supreme Court. Moses is definitely seen there, sitting (not standing), and with the Ten Commandments. That does show the central position Christianity has played in our justice system and Constitution. But, if I remember right, he's not the only one seated, and he's surrounded by many non-Christianity professing men.
There no doubt in my mind, I'm glad to be a citizen of a country built upon the Christian premises. It has catapulted us to great prominence. Our Republican government and Protestantism have been a unique and powerful combination. Yet, built within both institutions is the freedoms to choose and to think and to do. As soon as we lose those freedoms, America is finished. Any alteration of the first amendment will have dire results. Any fusing of church and state, anyone laying a finger on the holy injunction separating the two, will be the traitor that brings us down. Yet, we are hearing it blasphemously spoken, There never was a wall of separation. Besides the Magna Carta, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbs, in the minds of our forefathers, was the not-so-distant Papal intolerance and Inquisition and Roger Williams' doctrine of separation.
Pat, I can't wait to hear from you again.
Further response from my mother to Separation of Church and State-2-27-2006
Sorry, I didn’t mean to leave the impression that I thought the Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech for Christians only. I only brought this out because Christians seem to be the only ones who are being denied this freedom. I think that well meaning people are being influenced by Constitutional “experts” who believe somehow that freedom of speech allows every form of speech except that of a religious nature. No such Article or Amendment in the Constitution exists.
It’s true that owners of private businesses can set their own rules, unless they violate the law or the Constitution. But sadly many of them are following the ridiculous trend that sends the message that only secular speech can be spoken in public. Why should I have to be afraid that someone is going to “call the law” on me if I happen to say anything about religion in public. If city ordinances do not allow free speech, I strongly suggest that those ordinances are unconstitutional. Christ did not mince words for fear of offending someone. It is true He was very gentle while here on Earth but He was also firm when it was required. “Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.” Matthew 12:3 Jesus was not so much concerned that the words to which He was referring would offend someone as He was that they would be spoken out in the open and be spoken loud enough for all to hear.
The phrase, “in the year of our Lord” was allowed in the Constitution, Article VII and whether it was done under the name of 18th Century propriety or some other name, it was allowed-that’s the bottom line. How often today would anything even close to that be allowed to be spoken in the public square or in the government? I see nothing in the Bible or the Constitution either one which would disallow it.
The government today does not have a “hands off” policy toward religion. It is denying free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. That’s more like hands around the throat to throttle free speech.
Public School may not be compulsory in the purely technical sense but for many especially those with large families it may as well be. Free education through High School is supposed to be one of our “rights”. Yes, destructive lifestyles are taught in the Public Schools. “Alternate life styles, code for homosexuality, was taught in the grades as low as the second grade. I haven’t heard anything lately about it. I suppose “interfering” parents complained loudly enough to bring it to a stop. I can’t see how “we the people” by expressing our concerns to our government are somehow losing our spirituality. Of course these concerns are not the very essence of our religion, but in themselves are not immoral or illegal.
Why should we sit back and let evil have it’s way. Is it to bring Christ’s return sooner and therefore bring a resolution to the conflict between good and evil? I look forward to Christ’s soon appearing but I don’t think we should beckon persecution just for the sake of persecution. I am glad that I have the freedom to choose my own religion, but I’ve never heard of a single case that forced any citizen of this country to do otherwise. I don’t see that it has any bearing on the so called separation of Church and State. We always need to be vigilant, but for me the liberty that is being taken away right now is that of freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression..
I appreciate the concern of others on this subject but I believe that God wants us to cherish and protect our freedoms.
God Bless
A.J
Thanks again for your willingness to express your thoughts about this subject. "Iron sharpeneth iron," as the verse goes, and we can sharpen our thoughts by coming together and voicing our angle on ideas. Maybe we're not solving all the world's problems by blogging, but it will raise the awareness for anyone chancing upon our exchange, especially a subject so important as this one is.
I'm glad we have the freedom to talk about this. Under dictatorships and Communism, this would be impossible. And if this subject were for any reason to make it onto the government's most hated list, Homeland Security would come into play and that would be the end of this blog. Of course, others might pop up in outrage, but they would be summarily removed sooner or later. This, though, would be an example of the results of uniting church and state--silencing any disenting voices against that cozy relationship.
Mom, you say you've never heard of any law forcing citizens to choose a certain Protestant religion, yet we are hearing people say that we are a Christian nation. Its not probable that any one of the Protestant denominations would be picked for a Christian nation. But just by the mere claim that ours is a Christian nation, non-Christian religions are immediately discriminated against. If we are a nation based on any of the Christian principles, then let us follow this one out of the courtesy born of divine love, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Rom. 14:5.
Reply to David on Natural Rights
David,
I pulled out my old volume of The Second Treatise of Government, by John Locke.
Locke was an ardent Christian who set forth the premise that the law of nature teaches us many things about what is acceptable to man. Locke looked at the law of nature, or natural law as emanating from our Creator. In his section on the state of nature, Locke states that men have “perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man”. (p. 4)
Interestingly Jefferson based his ideas hugely on Locke when he wrote the Declaration, declaring that everyone has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the original declaration of Jefferson, it read life, liberty, and property—something that we might lament in these days of our government’s misuse of eminent domain. Most importantly Jefferson’s phrase seems to emanate from one of Locke’s which is most revealing: “reason. . . teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker.” (Does this remind you of Jefferson’s unalienable rights endowed by our Creator?)
Natural law is the subject of his whole book, and I do not want to detract or oversimplify all that Locke says. Essentially though Locke appeals to a Christian God at every turn in his reasoning and I think it is important to realize that. His thesis was that God had given us law: “The law that was to govern Adam was the same that was to govern all his posterity—the law of reason.”(p. 32)
Your reasoning is sound when you say that the framers intentionally tried to take out specific religion of our founding documents. But they did so on the basis of their understanding of natural rights, in the context of Locke who was widely read at that time. I raised this as an issue, because the most persuasive arguments that Christians make for original intent is based on the common understanding of natural rights, something I do believe our courts have lost sight of in these modern times.
Our precepts then were formed not on a mixture of religions from Islam, Jews, or Hindus, but purely on Christian precepts. Those very precepts teach us to use reason and gently administer our government in the spirit of tolerance. I do believe, however, that things like abortion, euthanasia, and eminent domain are prime examples of issues that would be decided very differently if those precepts were remembered.
Hope that helps a bit with natural rights.
Pat
Thanks Pat. I have much to learn. I have never even tried to read anything from John Locke, although I have heard of him for decades. What did he have to say about church and state? I can understand his position on natural rights. Although George Washington seemed to see things a little differently on eminent domain. He saw the need for strong central government, while Jefferson saw the key to success being in unequivocal equality. Washington looked through that and saw reality. In way, America under Washington became a folcrum between France and Britain of 1800, total freedom on one hand and intolerant government on the other. I haven't studied the philosophy, but looking at the results says a lot about natural rights. America and its rise to the top has put natural rights to the test, and our brand of it has worked better than any other nation's.
But my biggest concern is with the relationship between church and state. I'd like to know where Locke stood on this issue. Here we are talking about the freedom of conscience and worship of a nation. This seems to be more fundamental than the life and death. It is what our Reformation forefathers died for. It must be of utmost important.
David,
Locke was an Englishman who died in 1704. He was not writing at all of the separation of church and state. Church and state was a doctrine formally inducted at a later time by the courts, and relied heavily on a letter from Jefferson to Monroe(I am not positive Monroe was the recipient?) in which the only expression of separation of church and state is ever mentioned. I do agree with you that our forefathers attempted to pull the state away from sponsorship of specific religion, but they did so from the basis of being very Christian men. On the very day Jefferson penned the letter to Monroe he also voted for the public punishment of a man who had wantonly broken the Sabbath. The argument that Americans were trying to escape the tyranny of specific sects was certainly paramount in their minds, but also Americans were trying to create the greatest federal state of toleration that had ever been conceived. They did not conceive of the states ever being forced to give up their religions; indeed it seems to me that the states were very possessive of their respective religions and would not in any way have signed up with a government intent on taking that away. The states rights were reserved to the states (the ninth amendment?) and it was not until after the Civil War that the courts decided the 14th amendment trumped the ninth amendment, thus making every state religious-free.
Locke did write extensively on the individual and societies—their mutual responsibilities to each other. Locke definitely came down on the side of the individual and the sacrosanctness of his will in following God. He said that “the end of government is the good of mankind”. Locke was involved in the outcome of the Civil War of England, in which the Stuarts eventually prevailed. Locke was the opposite of Hobbs for Hobbs believed that one should be willing to surrender almost everything for the benefits of political order. He sensed that there was a society structure that was definite and different from government, and that society could be trusted to provide stability even when revolution might be needed. In writing of this, he was one of the first to conceive that society and government were different. His writing is most important because he believed that government’s primary responsibility was to preserve the rights of property for individuals. And, of course, for the sake of our discussion, everything that he termed the “law of nature” was that which emanated from a Christian God. It is impossible to understand our forefathers without understanding the Christian God was behind all of the unalienable rights we were declaring before the king and the world.
The United States remains the great Christian experiment. It is failing, for like all responsibilities we attempt for God, we inevitably fail in our Christian duty. And complicating all that we created is the fact that non-Christians have equal voice. Thus we must decline in our closeness to God, and all the more as we ourselves fail in our personal walk with our God. When Christ comes for one thousand years, if I understand correctly, we will have Him as our Dictator. Yet when that time is over, man will still fail the best of all governments, and we will prove our need of overwhelming grace.
Pat
Thanks again Pat.
I can see that Locke was a product of Christianity, thus it was woven into the fibers of his system of fairness. I can also see that the great reformation begun by Christ would result in products of the highest caliber as seen in governments. Religion is the cradle out of which spring great leaders, Christianity being the best of cradles. For this reason, I see our revolutionary forefathers formulating the amazing Constitution that we have passed down to us.
Yet in light of all that, Protestantism allows truth to be tested. It must be willing to be hammered out or its not truth. everything by suffering and pain and difficulty. If hammering is allowed, truth will result. If no hammering happens, truth will slowly fade into error, due to man's natural propensity to blindness and falsehood. Thus truth can afford to be fair. It cries out to men, Bring on all your witnesses and convoluted philosophies. "Produce your cause, saith the Lord bring out your stong reasons, saith the King of Jacob." "Put Me in remembrance: let us plead together; declare thou, that thou mayest be justified." "Come now, and let us reason together." Is. 41:21,43:26,1:18.
So Christianity doesn't need the halls of Congress to do its work in the souls of men. It never did and never will. Truth is not afraid to remain separate, just as God is not afraid to stand alone. He says that all the nations are just a drop in a bucket.
Like you said, "The United States remains the great Christian experiment. It is failing, for like all responsibilities we attempt for God, we inevitably fail in our Christian duty." I appreciate this honest confession. It needs to be spoken and heard in all the churches of this nation. They are following certain religious leaders who are putting the blame on the government, when they should be taking responsibility upon themselves and redoubling their efforts in the strenth of God alone. Faith will move mountains of sin. The government cannot help us in the work of the Holy Spirit--the work of confession and repentance. Our patriotic forefathers would have whole-heartedly agreed with me. Yet the churches are appealing, no, going on the attack, toward the government. They have forgotten repentance and their duty. They are going after a speck in their neighbor's eye and not removing the 2X4 sticking out of our own. We are our biggest problem. We need to appeal to God to fix us and then everything else will fall into place.
Pat, thanks for your patience with this long reply.
David,
I thought about your post when I read this article: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0604.waldman.html
I basically agree with the article except for the author's view that separation of church and state should exclude tuition paid to religious schools. They did that in the early years; it is only now that we find it crossing the new barrier between religion and state. And of course the article does not deal with the natural rights that we spoke about over a couple of posts.
I think you will find the article well written and informative. I learned a bit about Patrick Henry that I did not know before,as well as Madison.
Pat
Pat, thanks so much for that article. I read it and it was very well written and persuasive. I even sent them a comment.
Several paragraphs from the article stood out to me, "“Religions is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals,” the Baptists wrote, warning that government “dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehova and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.” Government had no business meddling in the affairs of the soul, where there is only one Ruler."
I also agree with the following, how Protestantism and Republicanism work without conflict to form a united front to defend the principle of self-government, "One Baptist petition declared “We do... earnestly declare against [the assessment bill] as being contrary to the spirit of the gospel and the bill of rights.”"
Wrote James Madison in his Memorial and Remonstrance, “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
Will the new evangelicals claim, "Oh, we'll be better this time around?" I ask, Has human nature changed over the past 200 years?
Yet, the popularly mandated and intelligently orchestrated push to alter the first Amendment will take place. And with that alteration, we will see the repudiation of all freedoms granted in our current Constitution. America will look the same, but the appearance will only be a facade. Bible prophecy says America will reinstate the Papacy with all its inevitable civil penalties toward dissenters, and we see the beginnings of this work before our very eyes, in the efforts of the evangelicals to control all three branches of our government and then to deny the separation of church and state.
Thanks again, Pat.
Yet, the popularly mandated and intelligently orchestrated push to alter the first Amendment will take place
David,
You say that will happen, but I am not so sure. I think in large measure it already happened during Prohibition. True we had an unlikely alliance with do-gooder liberals which is conveniently forgotten, but the Prohibition movement was largely pushed by zealous Christians. I am not so sure that we are going to overwhelm again. Already there is a large backlash against Christians, which I fear will bring no good. I know you come from a state where all seems Christian, and I come from one which all seems pagan. Perhaps that is the difference of our perspectives. As for the Papacy reigning supreme, that has been held by some for years, at least in a world- wide connotation. I am not sure how it will affect us in the US, since we seem to matter very little in end time prophecy.
Pat
Hi Pat,
Its true, I live in the Bible belt and California is very materialistic. You rightly called California pagan. I grew up around Washington DC, so I know what you're going through.
The Old Testament describes two enemies of Israel: a pagan nation and a papal nation, Egypt and Babylon. Egypt represented the life of flagrant rebellion. Like Pharoah told Moses, "Who is Yahweh that I should obey Him and let Israel go?" Our current pervasive atheism answers to Egypt. Then there was the other enemy, Babylon, the Gate of the gods. There they boasted of having the greatest religiosity in the world, with the most gods, and the most mysterious system of secrets of the gods. Papal Rome inherited its religion of mysteries from Babylon, all of it. And any religion without the God of the Bible is papal, a look alike, even within Christendom.
What I am trying to say is, that just because I live in the Bible belt doesn't mean I'm surrounded by holy influences. And its just this very papal religious setting that will bring the worst persecutions to the world. That is why Babylon takes such a central place in Revelation. Its not a literal Babylon, but a spiritual one. Its the "popularly mandated and intelligently orchestrated push to alter the first Amendment will take place," in order to make us a religious nation, that I have written about.
Pat, I don't mean to be pushy. I prize your comments and your wisdom. But I'm seeing prophecy being fulfilled even as we speak.
If you like, I would like to explain myself in saying America does play a pivotal role in end time prophecy.
Post a Comment
<< Home