Seperation of Church & State

**RaiderWahoo0105** · January 10th, 2006, 11:57 AM

In response to:
Some people thump the Bible until they're red in the face, but lose sight of the fact that God lives and we can have a relationship with him and he will guide us through prayer and through studying the word...not all answers come from the Bible--it is merely a guide by which for us to worship & relate to God and Jesus Christ. I know that's an unpopular opinion, but I think it's a focal point to help us see things that God wants us to see and have knowledge of.

That my friend whether your realize (intended) it or not, is a very "Catholic" statement haha.

**imported_biggamesjames** · January 10th, 2006, 04:06 PM

"focusing on their relationship with God and Jesus (and for Catholics, the Holy Mother)"
-Are you implying that Catholics do not show the same reverence to "the holy trinity" that protestants do?

"They should NOT attempt to control government."
-I see, should they atleast be allowed to participate in government so as they don't end up being excluded or CONTROLLED by that very same gov't itself?

"There shouldn't be any statements on any governmental control or law by the Vatican, the Church of God, the Southern Baptists, the Jewish, the Islamic, etc...as a body trying to influence government."
-Wow...let me take this in, if thats not a radical statement I don't know what is! A call to exclude all faiths from freedom of speech!

"Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc...Religious men claiming their religion as an excuse to push their own political agendas."
-So are you saying they are not really men of faith but just pretend to be for their own political motives? Do you have any supporting facts on that?

"especially when it comes to affairs a religious body has no business dealing with."
-Just curious which affairs you might be referring to?

**CoeburnCane** · January 10th, 2006, 04:33 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-Are you implying that Catholics do not show the same reverence to "the holy trinity" that protestants do?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and I do not see how you got that out of what I said. I explained to RW0105 about what I meant in a few consequent posts.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-I see, should they atleast be allowed to participate in government so as they don't end up being excluded or CONTROLLED by that very same gov't itself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Active participation is one thing...a highly welcome thing that is necessary. Attempting to actively control and manipulate government to serve their religious fatwas--not so much.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-Wow...let me take this in, if thats not a radical statement I don't know what is! A call to exclude all faiths from freedom of speech!

[/ QUOTE ]

No--once again--you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I feel that they're in the business of spreading faith and saving people--not running the government. Vote your conscience and your faith, but don't actively try to control legislature to fit a religious agenda.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-So are you saying they are not really men of faith but just pretend to be for their own political motives? Do you have any supporting facts on that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would tell you my facts, but I don't want to suffer another stroke...[img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Seriously...you can tell from their actions and their words what they're trying to do. When do you hear about Dobson, Robertson, or Falwell in the news? Not when they've helped save so many souls and bring them to knowing Christ, but when they're speaking out against something they see as diabolical and evil because it's an inconvenience to them. Why should we have to hear Dobson or Falwell call Spongebob or Tinky-Winky homosexual? Who cares? It seems to me that if you want to lead people to faith in Jesus, you'd do it by acceptance, not by perpetual chastisement.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
-Just curious which affairs you might be referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any government sanctioned affairs. I don't want to hear what my local pastor says about the price of oil by the barrel. I don't want to hear Robertson give his thoughts on how to solve the problem of stopping the AIDS epidemic. Stick to saving souls. Let the "secular leaders" take care of the secular world, and concentrate on strengthening your churches (not politically, but spiritually) and the rest will take care of itself. Jehovah Jireh--go look that up and see what it means.

**RaiderWahoo0105** · January 10th, 2006, 04:39 PM

as the day... haha in just a day... has progressed, I'm getting stronger intuitions that church and state should be greatly seperated

like I said, the religious folk should work on influencing how people lead their lives in a moral fashion, rather than controlling what they do in the voting both...

isn't the point of christianity recruiting people to the flock and teaching them good graces such that they WILLINGLY accept God, rather than force feeding them an opinion...

Haha this would be good material one day for the social contract theory of justifying political procedure

**imported_biggamesjames** · January 10th, 2006, 07:52 PM

"Active participation is one thing...a highly welcome thing that is necessary. Attempting to actively control and manipulate government to serve their religious fatwas--not so much."
-Last sentence could very well be used to describe many secularists(insert "non" before religious)

"Seriously...you can tell from their actions and their words what they're trying to do. When do you hear about Dobson, Robertson, or Falwell in the news? Not when they've helped save so many souls and bring them to knowing Christ, but when they're speaking out against something they see as diabolical and evil because it's an inconvenience to them. Why should we have to hear Dobson or Falwell call Spongebob or Tinky-Winky homosexual? Who cares? It seems to me that if you want to lead people to faith in Jesus, you'd do it by acceptance, not by perpetual chastisement."
-I agree with you to a point and will not condone all of their actions but whose to say they are do such things for any kind of political gain? While I totally disagree with Robertson claiming to understand God's actions for natural disasters or the stroke of Israel's president I actually don't see how he could gain anything from that politically...and honestly speaking I can't say he is wrong either because I really do not know. It would be outrageous for anyone to claim as fact that they do know about any kind of divine intervention or dispute (as fact)any such claim like Robertson made as being invalid. I may be wrong but I believe Robertson made a statement based on his theological "interpretation" of the Bible and didn't make any claim that what he said was "The Gospel." He has a different way of communicating his beliefs and I think he sincerely believes what he says no matter how off base it may seem and in the case of Sharon I'm sure their are biblical passages that support his claim...but once again I do not condone what he said at all. Just saying there are several passages in the Bible which make reference to the "Holy Land"(Israel) and negative results to those who attempt to defy it or it Sharon's case allow others(non-Jews) to stake claim to it.

"Any government sanctioned affairs. I don't want to hear what my local pastor says about the price of oil by the barrel. I don't want to hear Robertson give his thoughts on how to solve the problem of stopping the AIDS epidemic. Stick to saving souls. Let the "secular leaders" take care of the secular world, and concentrate on strengthening your churches (not politically, but spiritually) and the rest will take care of itself. Jehovah Jireh--go look that up and see what it means."
-Well I think you just told me what it means in the sentence prior to it.
Personally I see more secularists who want any reference or practice of religion banned(more specifically Christianity)than I see of any religious leaders trying to impose a state religion on government. The backlash to this secularist influence are citizens of faith considering such religious/moral based issues more important than before because of the religiously eroding affect over time that secularists are having on gov't policy. In my opinion people of faith have just as much right to vote their conscience NO MATTER WHAT THE ISSUE as do secularists.
One follow up question to what you just stated...do you agree that Pope John Paul II had a right to his actions when he attempted to influence then VA Governor Doug Wilder to grant clemency to Grundy native Roger Keith Coleman in '92?

**imported_biggamesjames** · January 10th, 2006, 08:11 PM

"No--once again--you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I feel that they're in the business of spreading faith and saving people--not running the government. Vote your conscience and your faith, but don't actively try to control legislature to fit a religious agenda."

-Thats nothing close to what you said in your previous statement on the issue.

**RaiderWahoo0105** · January 10th, 2006, 11:36 AM

Okay I'll lay things out as I see them and I'll try to take on criticism whether instructive or destructive because if you can think your way through adversity you'll find a position you can be proud of to support and help other find the position they need to support given their own morals.

*Assuming you read the article posted, here's how I want to start stuff out*.
First my flaws: Though I was raised in a Catholic (yes Christian) family, I am not the perfect son. Far from it, I've been a hypocrit many times throughout my life, I've done a lot of wrong. I'm still working on becoming a better person, and I may not ever be completely happy with how morally good I am, but my aim is to gain consistency in the morals I espouse along with how I act in everday life.
That being said...

I think the complicating philosphical matter is creating a distinction between what is morally prudent and what is practically/socially prudent and which sense of prudency to use in the political arena, whether voting or establishing a platform.

Inherently, Church-State seperatoin is a good thing given the history of the world. Take for example Medieval Catholic Italy or Early Protestant England. In both cultures people unfairly used religion for the sake of political gain and to coerce people based on "divine right". Putting power in the hands of the people is what modern society prides itself on because it prevents this immoral and unfounded use of religion for personal gain.

But what happens when a democratic political system is in place, one of secular basis, based on majority rule. The beauty of the democratic system of rule is that people are respected as individuals and it is in no one's place to dictate what morals a person has, so long as he/she does not harm their fellow man in doing so.

Fast forward a couple hundred years of social/political evolution...
You are in the position of being a voter for the office of president in a bipartisan political system. You are a pereson of religious background and one party supports your views and the other party supports the exact opposite.

The problem of the matter is, the other party that supports your oppositve view on the moral matter supports your views on a vast array of other things (make stuff up just so the argument works... to not change focus of the argument lets say this second party supports something that is easily agreed upon like human rights in general for law-abiding citizens). But the first party doesn't cover your views with respect to these other things as well as the second party does.

The problem is that because you are a man of faith and religious background, the one moral issue that the first party supports is recognized by your religion as the foundation of the entire faith.

Here's where the matter got complicated for me. The Republican party is pro-life but is in complete disagreement with a lof of my beliefs on social justice and even some of my partical notions of monetary policy and such.

Which do you give more precedent? Your religious morals or your practical intuition which you know would benefit a lot of other people?

**imported_biggamesjames** · January 10th, 2006, 03:50 PM

"Here's where the matter got complicated for me. The Republican party is pro-life but is in complete disagreement with a lof of my beliefs on social justice and even some of my partical notions of monetary policy and such."

In what way are you in disagreement with the Republican Party in reference to social justice? I am somewhat in agreement with your analysis on Republican Fiscal policy and have stated that several times myself.

**RaiderWahoo0105** · January 10th, 2006, 03:57 PM

ergh, that's for another day and after I do a lot of research before I open my mouth...
I'm speaking off of intutition, strong intutition, but my opinions aren't perfectly researched...
I'll bring it up eventually I'm sure as we get closer to critical elections.

**CoeburnCane** · January 10th, 2006, 04:03 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
ergh, that's for another day and after I do a lot of research before I open my mouth...
I'm speaking off of intutition, strong intutition, but my opinions aren't perfectly researched...
I'll bring it up eventually I'm sure as we get closer to critical elections.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least you're honest and bravo to you for wanting to come on this board and argue facts instead of pure intuition, thought, & emotion. You'll be a welcome asset here.