Rethinking the separation between church and state

[Jericho]

I've always viewed the notion of separation between church and state as negative. But upon further reading, I believe there are positive benefits to separating the two. The alternative is where one ruler is both over the state and the church, which was common in the Middle Ages. That led to the persecution of various Christian groups just because they believed a little different from the monarch in power. Queen Mary I, for example, who was head of the state-established Church of England, attempted to reverse the English Reformation and eliminate Protestant versions of the Bible. Many Protestant leaders were subsequently arrested and burned at the stake for their "heresies." Due to her ruthless reign, she earned the nickname Bloody Mary. That is not what we want.

When God structured Israel, He placed Moses over the civil affairs and Aaron over the spiritual affairs. It was a separation between church and state of sorts, but the caveat was that neither the church nor the state was secular; only that there were separate leaders over both. That is a healthy separation between church and state. It's contrary to today, where people believe that separation between church and state means the state should be totally secularized. But this was not the case with the founding of America. The influence of Christianity was predominant throughout our founding; it's only that historians have secularized American history to such a degree that no one ever learns about it.

 

[marks]

I've always viewed the notion of separation between church and state as negative. But upon further reading, I believe there are positive benefits to separating the two. The alternative is where one ruler is both over the state and the church, which was common in the Middle Ages. That led to the persecution of various Christian groups just because they believed a little different from the monarch in power. Queen Mary I, for example, who was head of the state-established Church of England, attempted to reverse the English Reformation and eliminate Protestant versions of the Bible. Many Protestant leaders were subsequently arrested and burned at the stake for their "heresies." Due to her ruthless reign, she earned the nickname Bloody Mary. That is not what we want.

When God structured Israel, He placed Moses over the civil affairs and Aaron over the spiritual affairs. It was a separation between church and state of sorts, but the caveat was that neither the church nor the state was secular; only that there were separate leaders over both. That is a healthy separation between church and state. It's contrary to today, where people believe that separation between church and state means the state should be totally secularized. But this was not the case with the founding of America. The influence of Christianity was predominant throughout our founding; it's only that historians have secularized American history to such a degree that no one ever learns about it.

I agree with your perspective here. The separation between church and state was never intended to keep Christianity out of government, it was to keep government out of the church. Just like the part about not establishing a certain religion, it was intended by the founding fathers that no one Christian denomination be favored over another.

Much love!

 

[doctrox]

We should learn from our past steps through history and time, not repeat them over and over again until they become the norm. The people of any Christian nation cannot withdraw to the comfort and security of their ornate Cathedrals, sit in their comfortable padded pews, and watch as the world around them goes to hell. To do so is a betrayal to the true church and a denial of the power of His Word. One of the most clever tools in the enemy's arsenal, used to silence and intimidate Christians and drive them out of the public forum, is the great lie known as the "separation of church and State." The separation of church and state is a lie. God never put a wall up between them. There is no such statement in the US Constitution. Our Constitution provides for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Germany learned this in 1934 when there was a special meeting held in the German capital of Berlin. Hitler had been Chancellor for just over a year and was taking Germany through a process called "glichshaltung", which basically meant at the time 'coordination.' Everything, including the church, was being re-aligned in terms of Hitler's new national-socialist philosophy. Public protests had already begun as the people objected to this interference with the church. To counter this resounding rejection by the people, Hitler called together the most important Preachers in Germany, gathered them at the chancellery building, and reassured them in order to silence their criticism. Hitler told them their State subsidies would continue, their tax exemptions were secure, and that the church had nothing to fear from a Nazi government.

A young Preacher, Martin Neimuller, spoke up at that gathering and objected directly to Hitler. The other Preachers stood there in frozen silence as the bold Neimuller pushed his way up through the crowd to the German Chancellor, eventually facing him eye to eye, and said with all boldness and Christian conviction, "Heir Hitler, our concern is not for the church. Jesus Christ will take care of His church. Our concern is for the soul of our nation." As Neimuller was being ushered away by his fellow Christian Ministers, Hitler cunningly resounded "The soul of Germany... you can leave that to me!" And that's just what the church in Germany did; they separated the Church and State from that day on until not many years later, their nation was completely destroyed. America, as so many other nations, continues to do the same today.

There is only one Lawgiver (James 4:12).

 

[JohnDB]

I've always viewed the notion of separation between church and state as negative. But upon further reading, I believe there are positive benefits to separating the two. The alternative is where one ruler is both over the state and the church, which was common in the Middle Ages. That led to the persecution of various Christian groups just because they believed a little different from the monarch in power. Queen Mary I, for example, who was head of the state-established Church of England, attempted to reverse the English Reformation and eliminate Protestant versions of the Bible. Many Protestant leaders were subsequently arrested and burned at the stake for their "heresies." Due to her ruthless reign, she earned the nickname Bloody Mary. That is not what we want.

When God structured Israel, He placed Moses over the civil affairs and Aaron over the spiritual affairs. It was a separation between church and state of sorts, but the caveat was that neither the church nor the state was secular; only that there were separate leaders over both. That is a healthy separation between church and state. It's contrary to today, where people believe that separation between church and state means the state should be totally secularized. But this was not the case with the founding of America. The influence of Christianity was predominant throughout our founding; it's only that historians have secularized American history to such a degree that no one ever learns about it.

Bloody Mary's reign led to a group moving as far away from government as possible into a little town surrounded by mountains called Geneva. Where they worked and saved money to buy printing presses, paper, and ink. And After Mary died from cancer they returned with what is commonly known today as the Geneva Bible. Which became the first prolific "Everyman's Bible" that was in everyone's household. People got to read the scriptures for themselves for the first time ever. Sunday mass did not include scripture reading for a few hundred years yet.

The Geneva Bible is the Bible of Shakespeare and Sir Francis Drake. It was brought to the New Land America and India.

The Government (Elizabeth the Virgin Queen) suggested that everyone who could afford one should get one.

This notion of a separation between church and state is something of a misnomer. It's only been attempted for 250 years out of the thousands of years of man's existence....just saying I really would not call this new experiment a success yet.

 

[Wrangler]

This notion of a separation between church and state is something of a misnomer. It's only been attempted for 250 years out of the thousands of years of man's existence....just saying I really would not call this new experiment a success yet.

Laws change as the needs change, like a pendulum back and forth.

 

[doctrox]

Laws change as the needs change, like a pendulum back and forth.

For I am the LORD, I change not (Mal. 3:6).
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. (Heb. 13:8-9).

 

[JohnDB]

BTW....when I say misnomer I mean just that. In Thomas Jefferson's letter where this is stated (because it's not in the constitution) the "State" referred to the Federal Government and the Church referred to the State governments as you know the term today. IE : Church of New York, Church of Pennsylvania, Church of Virginia and etc.

The letter described the separation of States rights versus Federal intervention into States rights and laws.

There's a lot of misunderstandings about the Constitution. It doesn't give rights...it limits the Government's ability to infringe upon your rights. Basically it says that congress shall not endorse or prohibit the Worship of Christianity in the manner you choose to do so. (Not atheism, Buddhism, Islam, or flying spaghetti monsters)

You also do not have a right to privacy....contrary to popular opinion. The Government does not have a right to search or seize your personal information or property without due process of the courts. Which Congress just gave the right away....but I expect it to be challenged soon by SCOTUS. (As soon as they are finished with the Democrats persecution of Trump)

 

[Pearl]

The church fellowship I belong to has no connection with the state at all. It started with a group of people disillusioned by the traditional denominations (even Catholics) meeting in people's homes.

 

[doctrox]

There's a lot of misunderstandings about the Constitution. It doesn't give rights...it limits the Government's ability to infringe upon your rights.

Not even close. "Christianity" and the Constitution are mutually exclusive.

The Constitutional convention began as a convention to suggest changes to the Articles of Confederation which would be reported back to that Congress and voted on by them (North, p. 379 and pp. 414-415), not to create a new form of government or a new constitution. From the beginning, there was little mention of building a Christian civil covenant. The issue of framing the Constitution was more one of balance of powers and how well the government would work than on whether or not to create a Christian civil covenant (Stanley N. Katz ,"The Origins of Constitutional Thought." Journal of Church and State, Volume 3, 1969). What was foremost in the mind of the framers was not Christianity.

"The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, 'the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicalism the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety" (Jim Walker, Little Known U.S. Documents Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government is Secular, Early America Review, Summer 1997).

The Founders thought more of the idea of a secular state than how to please God (Derek H. Davis, Religious Pluralism and the Quest for Unity in American Life, Journal of Church and State, vol. 36, no. 2, Spring 1994). Even when the Convention was at an impasse and Franklin urged them to pray and ask for help, it was voted down (North, page 426).

The first criteria for a Christian civil government is a recognition of God as sovereign. Not only is Christ not recognized in the Constitution, there is no hint of God at all. The sovereign recognized in the Constitution is not God, it is the people. The Constitution is a covenant but not with God. "But no consideration will justify the framers of the federal constitution, and the administration of the government in withholding a recognition of the Lord and his Anointed from the grand charter of the nation. On our daily bread, we ask a blessing. At our ordinary meals, we acknowledge the Lord of the world. We begin our last testament for disposing of worldly estates, in the name of God: and we shall be guiltless, with the Bible in our hands, to disclaim the Christian religion as a body politic" (Alexander M'Leod, The Moral Character of the Constitution).

The Founding Fathers apostatized from the Godly civil covenants of their and our forefathers. When they rejected God, they also rejected God's law. Thornwell concluded from the Founder's rejection of God, "They became a law unto themselves; there was nothing beyond them to check or control their caprices or their pleasure" (Thornwell, The Relation of the State to Christ).

People can talk all they want to about a Christian Constitution, but they will never be able to get around the fact that God is not even mentioned in it. Thornwell recognized this and said, "The fundamental error of our fathers was, that they accepted a partial for a complete statement of the truth. They saw clearly the human side-- that popular governments are the offspring of popular will; and that rulers, as the servants and not the masters of their subjects, are properly responsible to them. They failed to apprehend the Divine side-- that all just government is the ordinance of God, and that magistrates are His ministers who must answer to Him for the execution of their trust. The consequence of this failure, and of exclusive attention to a single aspect of the case, was to invest the people with a species of supremacy as insulting to God as it was injurious to them" (Thornwell, The Relation of the State to Christ).

Basically it says that congress shall not endorse or prohibit the Worship of Christianity in the manner you choose to do so. (Not atheism, Buddhism, Islam, or flying spaghetti monsters)

The Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment).

Do you realize that the Constitution allows everybody to freely worship any god they choose to? This is one of the greatest abominations to God.

Old Testament Israel had this same exact law also, and God would punish them whenever they enacted this law. Whenever people would worship other gods in his country, he would command them to tear down their temples and idols. If they refused, God would always punish his people. Even if there was a mixture of people worshipping the True God and people worshipping false gods, this was an abomination also, as his people are not to mix the two. God even commanded his people to go to neighboring countries of the heathen and tear down their temples and idols.

The truth is, the freedom of religion is an abomination to God. Man only has the "right" to worship Almighty God. To be free to worship any other god or partake of any other religion is an abomination to him, and violates the first Two Commandments:

Exodus 20:3-5, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:"

 

[Cassandra]

Not even close. "Christianity" and the Constitution are mutually exclusive.

The Constitutional convention began as a convention to suggest changes to the Articles of Confederation which would be reported back to that Congress and voted on by them (North, p. 379 and pp. 414-415), not to create a new form of government or a new constitution. From the beginning, there was little mention of building a Christian civil covenant. The issue of framing the Constitution was more one of balance of powers and how well the government would work than on whether or not to create a Christian civil covenant (Stanley N. Katz ,"The Origins of Constitutional Thought." Journal of Church and State, Volume 3, 1969). What was foremost in the mind of the framers was not Christianity.

"The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, 'the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicalism the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety" (Jim Walker, Little Known U.S. Documents Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government is Secular, Early America Review, Summer 1997).

The Founders thought more of the idea of a secular state than how to please God (Derek H. Davis, Religious Pluralism and the Quest for Unity in American Life, Journal of Church and State, vol. 36, no. 2, Spring 1994). Even when the Convention was at an impasse and Franklin urged them to pray and ask for help, it was voted down (North, page 426).

The first criteria for a Christian civil government is a recognition of God as sovereign. Not only is Christ not recognized in the Constitution, there is no hint of God at all. The sovereign recognized in the Constitution is not God, it is the people. The Constitution is a covenant but not with God. "But no consideration will justify the framers of the federal constitution, and the administration of the government in withholding a recognition of the Lord and his Anointed from the grand charter of the nation. On our daily bread, we ask a blessing. At our ordinary meals, we acknowledge the Lord of the world. We begin our last testament for disposing of worldly estates, in the name of God: and we shall be guiltless, with the Bible in our hands, to disclaim the Christian religion as a body politic" (Alexander M'Leod, The Moral Character of the Constitution).

The Founding Fathers apostatized from the Godly civil covenants of their and our forefathers. When they rejected God, they also rejected God's law. Thornwell concluded from the Founder's rejection of God, "They became a law unto themselves; there was nothing beyond them to check or control their caprices or their pleasure" (Thornwell, The Relation of the State to Christ).

People can talk all they want to about a Christian Constitution, but they will never be able to get around the fact that God is not even mentioned in it. Thornwell recognized this and said, "The fundamental error of our fathers was, that they accepted a partial for a complete statement of the truth. They saw clearly the human side-- that popular governments are the offspring of popular will; and that rulers, as the servants and not the masters of their subjects, are properly responsible to them. They failed to apprehend the Divine side-- that all just government is the ordinance of God, and that magistrates are His ministers who must answer to Him for the execution of their trust. The consequence of this failure, and of exclusive attention to a single aspect of the case, was to invest the people with a species of supremacy as insulting to God as it was injurious to them" (Thornwell, The Relation of the State to Christ).


The Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment).

Do you realize that the Constitution allows everybody to freely worship any god they choose to? This is one of the greatest abominations to God.

Old Testament Israel had this same exact law also, and God would punish them whenever they enacted this law. Whenever people would worship other gods in his country, he would command them to tear down their temples and idols. If they refused, God would always punish his people. Even if there was a mixture of people worshipping the True God and people worshipping false gods, this was an abomination also, as his people are not to mix the two. God even commanded his people to go to neighboring countries of the heathen and tear down their temples and idols.

The truth is, the freedom of religion is an abomination to God. Man only has the "right" to worship Almighty God. To be free to worship any other god or partake of any other religion is an abomination to him, and violates the first Two Commandments:

Exodus 20:3-5, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:"

Render unto Caesar-----sounds like Jesus didn't mix church and state either.

 

[doctrox]

Render unto Caesar-----sounds like Jesus didn't mix church and state either.

Indeed he didn't!

That's an awesome passage, with Jesus laying the whole enchilada on the line. And folks don't discern exactly what he was highlighting there, and so go on to suffer for it.

For example, the 'Jesus paid taxes' lie, which is a popular myth taught throughout evangelical Christianity. Religion has always been the tool of choice of tyrants to control the sheeple.

In fact, Jesus himself was accused of forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar at his trial (Luke 32:2). Notice these were not false witnesses who accused Jesus of not paying taxes, because every time a false witness accused Jesus, the scripture tells us it was a false witness (Mark 14:57-59). Where did Jesus forbid to pay taxes to Caesar?

Well, referencing the passage from that verse you posted (Mark 12:13-17), Jesus was asked if it was lawful to give taxes to Caesar or not. A silver coin, with Caesar's inscription on it, was shown to Christ. In this example, the Lord's answer requires everyone to make the determination as to what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God;

Mark 12:17, "...Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's..."

Who did this silver coin belong to? Since the Scripture says, "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts" (Haggai 2:8), that means that the silver coin shown to Jesus belonged to God. However, those who live, move, and have their being in the image of Caesar, as the disciples of the Pharisees did, will believe this coin belongs to Caesar instead. We are not to be deluded by the image of Caesar (and his "constitutions"), but built-up in the image of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:7; 15:49, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Colossians 3:10).

 

[Bob Estey]

I've always viewed the notion of separation between church and state as negative. But upon further reading, I believe there are positive benefits to separating the two. The alternative is where one ruler is both over the state and the church, which was common in the Middle Ages. That led to the persecution of various Christian groups just because they believed a little different from the monarch in power. Queen Mary I, for example, who was head of the state-established Church of England, attempted to reverse the English Reformation and eliminate Protestant versions of the Bible. Many Protestant leaders were subsequently arrested and burned at the stake for their "heresies." Due to her ruthless reign, she earned the nickname Bloody Mary. That is not what we want.

When God structured Israel, He placed Moses over the civil affairs and Aaron over the spiritual affairs. It was a separation between church and state of sorts, but the caveat was that neither the church nor the state was secular; only that there were separate leaders over both. That is a healthy separation between church and state. It's contrary to today, where people believe that separation between church and state means the state should be totally secularized. But this was not the case with the founding of America. The influence of Christianity was predominant throughout our founding; it's only that historians have secularized American history to such a degree that no one ever learns about it.

There is a fine line here. I believe in the separation of church and state because if one man were in charge of both, there'd be trouble. Still, politicians should obey the Lord.

 

[Jericho]

People can talk all they want to about a Christian Constitution, but they will never be able to get around the fact that God is not even mentioned in it.

That's not completely true; the Constitution does say that our unalienable rights come from our creator (God). This was an important declaration and revolutionary for its time. It placed God before the state and ensured that our rights couldn't be taken away at the whim of whoever was in charge. For what the government gives, the government can take away.

The Founders never set out to create a theocracy, which would only really work if God was directly in charge. They did create a government based on biblical precepts, specifically a Romans 13-style just government. You also have to consider what influenced the Constitution, and the Bible was central to its creation.

Even before the U.S. Constitution was written, the colonies had their own laws and constitutions, which relied heavily on Christian verses and ideas. Connectict's first constitution, for instance, was heavily influenced by a sermon from Reverend Thomas Hooker. It was the first constitution in the colonies and had a big influence on the U.S. constitution. That is just one example. So, while God or Jesus is not expressly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, Christianity's influence is there.

The Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment).

Do you realize that the Constitution allows everybody to freely worship any god they choose to? This is one of the greatest abominations to God.

On the surface, it does, but I don't believe that was the original intent. Jospeh Story, the seventh Supreme Court justice ever appointed, suggested as much:

"The real object of the (first) amendment was, not to countenance (support), much less to advance Mahometanism (Islam), or Judaism, or infidelity (unbelief), by prostrating (lowering) Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage (support) of the national government." -Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (emphasis mine)

I believe what Joseph Story was saying here is that the First Amendment was created specifically with Christianity in mind, not any other religion. The Founders were heavily influenced by Christianity, whether they were all devout Christians or not. It permeated the culture to a much greater degree than it does now. I don't believe they ever foresaw a day when Christianity would ever lose its sway over America. They certaintly never foresaw something like Satanic clubs being allowed in schools. If they did, I'm certain they would have worded the First Amendment more succinctly.

 

[Pearl]

There is a fine line here. I believe in the separation of church and state because if one man were in charge of both, there'd be trouble. Still, politicians should obey the Lord.

I don't know about the US but here in the UK- according to Wikipedia - Anglican bishops are appointed after a long a convoluted process by the church resulting in two names being put forward for the final decision by the Prime Minister. Some bishops are good but others should not hold that position.

Our Monarch is officially head of the Church of England dating from the time of Henry VIII and the break away from Rome. O don't know what this office actually entails but Queen Elizabeth wrote a forward to a book about her faith called 'The Servant Queen and the King She Serves' so I believe she was born again.

 

[Bob Estey]

I don't know about the US but here in the UK- according to Wikipedia - Anglican bishops are appointed after a long a convoluted process by the church resulting in two names being put forward for the final decision by the Prime Minister. Some bishops are good but others should not hold that position.

Our Monarch is officially head of the Church of England dating from the time of Henry VIII and the break away from Rome. O don't know what this office actually entails but Queen Elizabeth wrote a forward to a book about her faith called 'The Servant Queen and the King She Serves' so I believe she was born again.

I would be uncomfortable if our (U.S.) president could name our bishops. First of all, our president (Biden) is an awful president, but I wouldn't want a good president to possess the power to run both the country and the church.

 

[Pearl]

I would be uncomfortable if our (U.S.) president could name our bishops. First of all, our president (Biden) is an awful president, but I wouldn't want a good president to possess the power to run both the country and the church.

I don't belong to a traditional denomination so it doesn't affect me. Our prime Minister is a Hindu so it's a good thing that it isn't in his remit to run the Anglican Church.

 

[doctrox]

That's not completely true; the Constitution does say that our unalienable rights come from our creator (God).

Please show us the quote where God is mentioned.

 

[bluedragon]

I heard something stunning to say the least. Had to go and look for the source .......

When the Mayflower landed, their Pact stated that the country was based on Christian Principles. So much for claim that America was not founded on Christianity. Some of these boats were escaping religious persecution in Europe. They landed with a prayer .....

But then added to the claim, Judiasm was a part of the founding. Makes sense, Jesus was Jewish.....then the shock ....Catholics were not to be accepted as citizens. Allegiance to the Pope was not allegiance to a new count.

 

[Peterlag]

I've always viewed the notion of separation between church and state as negative. But upon further reading, I believe there are positive benefits to separating the two. The alternative is where one ruler is both over the state and the church, which was common in the Middle Ages. That led to the persecution of various Christian groups just because they believed a little different from the monarch in power. Queen Mary I, for example, who was head of the state-established Church of England, attempted to reverse the English Reformation and eliminate Protestant versions of the Bible. Many Protestant leaders were subsequently arrested and burned at the stake for their "heresies." Due to her ruthless reign, she earned the nickname Bloody Mary. That is not what we want.

When God structured Israel, He placed Moses over the civil affairs and Aaron over the spiritual affairs. It was a separation between church and state of sorts, but the caveat was that neither the church nor the state was secular; only that there were separate leaders over both. That is a healthy separation between church and state. It's contrary to today, where people believe that separation between church and state means the state should be totally secularized. But this was not the case with the founding of America. The influence of Christianity was predominant throughout our founding; it's only that historians have secularized American history to such a degree that no one ever learns about it.

I believe the concept was to keep the State out of the Church. Not the Church out of the State.

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

The State ought to have nothing to do with christ Jesus ? is an insult to God !

Is the State solely from the point of view of prosperity of This carnal world, if such they have no higher power worthy of God ? so they will fail badly in fact, for who guides them ?

The Left do not believe in God at all in fact but they do believe in gods that they idolise in fact ! not to mention the far right has another god. That's the problem ! They do not serve Christ Jesus in fact, so how can such a one come to the Father ? for they do not have the Holy Spirit in fact, sure they have a spirit but it's not worthy of the Father ! for their Father is as Jesus pointed out, the Father of Lies and was a murderer from the begining !