Welcome to the forum, F O J.

What's your view of separation of church and state?

I think the separation of church and state is a creation and/or extraction for those who don't feel comfortable with religion. That's understandable, certainly. And I do believe that some practical separation assists both church and state.

The church is better to focus on the purpose of its existence: proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ, and serving those in need. When it gets bogged down in trying to exert influence on the state, it invariably gets off its main mission.

The state is better to avoid the strife between competing religious traditions, and likewise should never anoint one religion over another. I, obviously, believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and that Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, etc. are all false religions. But I respect the freedom of people to believe as they choose, especially since God grants the same freedom.

My problem is when either is taken to the extreme. If the vast majority of a locale's residents are of a certain religious persuation, and they choose as a community to erect some form of religious imagery (the Ten Commandments, a nativity scene, etc.), I don't believe a small minority should be able to force its will onto the majority. If I went to live in southeast Asia, I would expect and acclimate to the idea that my Christian faith is a minority and live with it.

The Constitution does not provide for the right never to be offended. Many in our modern society need to be reintroduced to that simple fact.

There you have it! Don't worry, I'm not always so long winded.

By the term "Separation of Church and State", I meant civil authority over religion. The Baptists created the concept. Why do you believe they were uncomfortable with religion?

How do you decide how much authority government should have over religion?

I see. Do you believe the primary principle of separation is that the church should have no influence on the state?

Does the right of private choice in matters of religion include the right to be free from all attempts by civil authority to influence religion?

What principle determines what is extreme as regards civil authority over religion?

What if the imagery erected is an attempt by civil government to influence religion?

Does the minority have the right not to have civil authority try to influence its religious conscience?

I thought one of the grand objects of the Godless Constitution was to prevent the federal government from offending the rights of conscience. I thought that's why the federal government was granted no power over religion. At least, that's the way it was sold by its supporters.

What's the conservative position on school prayer, these days?

I don't believe the state has ANY role or authority over religion. If and when church and state associate, it is a one way arrangement where the church affects the state. It should never be the other way around. The Constitution prohibits influence of the state. It also forbids the establishment of a state religion. There is a middle ground there that provides for some influence of the state by the church without it rising the level of the establishment. The history of America, up until the 1960's, is replete with this level of influence.

See above.

See above.

I'm not sure I understand this question.

As I said above, I do not recognize any civil authority over religious expression. This is strictly forbidden by the Constitution.

I have never witnessed such, so this would have to be purely hypothetical. The erection of religious imagery, to my knowledge and experience, has always been mainly one of the expression of a given community's religious heritage in public environs. I have never seen the state attempt to erect imagery in an attempt to control or influence the religious groups in a given area.

No, I don't believe the minority has such a right. As long as it is passive, I see nothing wrong with it. As I stated in my first post, there is no freedom from religion in the Constitution. Somewhere along the way, the idea developed that people should never have to see anything religious in public. The Constitution provides no such protection. I find it to be a matter of simple respect. "When in Rome..." as they say. When you choose to live as a minority in a given area, then I think you should afford some simple respect to the majority in that area to publicly express their collective religious convictions.

The government offends my right of conscience every day. Nearly every act of a government has, at its basis, a morality. My government offends my religious convictions at times. At other times, it supports it. As for the Godless Constitution, I don't get it. While the Declaration of Independence is not a binding instruction on the manner of authority of the federal government, it is a revealing statement about the convictions of the men who later wrote the Constitution. And if so much credence is to be placed on the extra-Constitutional writings of Thomas Jefferson (where the separation doctrine really has its origin), then what of the profligate extra-Constitutional writings of other founding fathers which gush with expressions of thanks and credit to Providence, God, or whatever other name given to the Divine in that period?

This is the wrong thread to start a discussion. Can a mod move this to religion?

__________________
Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

What about the role of guarding the right of men to follow the dictates of their conscience and convictions in matters of religion?

Where did you get that silly idea? David Barton?

Please point out the words of the Constitution that you believe prohibits influence of the state.

Please point out the words of the Constitution that you believe forbids the establishment of a state religion. Does putting "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins constituted "an establishment of religion", as the term is used in the establishment clause? If not, why not?

How exactly is the church supposed to influence the state; and what subject matters, under the jurisdiction of civil government, is the church supposed to influence?

I don't know what you mean. Please provide a few examples, my thoughtful friend.

What about the authority of civil government to give you non-binding religious advice, such as to trust in God?

Do you believe civil government should have the duty and authority to decide what our religious heritage is, and express it for us? What if it decides incorrectly?

Are you aware of the recent legal disputes regarding the display of the Ten Commandment by the civil authorities?

Is there freedom from government suggested religion? I thought Christians were supposed to take their religious suggestions from the one who rules over the Kingdom of Christ, not the civil authorities who rule over temporal matters and kingdomes.

Who says that people should never have to see anything religious in public, other than you and those who mischaracterize and try to demonize those who favor civil compliance with, and civil enforcement of, the Lord's directive not to render authority over religion to Caesar?

First, where did you get the silly notion that civil government has authority to decide what the people's religious convictions and then assume the duty to express them? Do you believe that one's religious obligations can be delegated to a third party. I thought it was a tenet of Christianity that one had to account to God for his faith.

Second, if God respects the religious convictions of the minority, shouldn't the majority do the same?

Third, if God claims the right to use reason and persuasion to convince men of the truth of the Gospel, doesn't that imply that civil government trespasses on the prerogatives of the Almighty, if it does the same?

Only the religious conscience is exempt from civil authority. The moral conscience is not exempt.

Can you provide some good examples?

Why don't we just construe the Constitution according the words in the document and the tried and true common law rules of interpretation set down by Blackstone, Rutherford, Coke and Middleton, instead of trying to figure out the convictions of men who have been dead for over a hundred years?

The Constitution should not be construed according to the writings of Thomas Jefferson, unless the writings were written prior to the adoption of the Constitution and constitute writings on "Subject Matter" as the term is used in Blackstone's Third Rule.

The Constitution should not be construed according to the writings of "other founding fathers which gush with expressions of thanks and credit to Providence, God, or whatever other name given to the Divine in that period", unless the writings were written prior to the adoption of the Constitution and constitute writings on "Subject Matter" as the term is used in Blackstone's Third Rule.

"The ordinary rules for construction" decide the sense in which the words of the Constitution "are to be understood." See Chief Justice John Jay's Written Opinion in Chisholm v. U. S. (1793), the first legal dispute to reach the Supreme Court requiring the Court to interpret a provision of the Constitution.

The question now before us renders it necessary to pay particular attention to that part of the second section, which extends the judicial power 'to controversies between a state and citizens of another state.' It is contended, that this ought to be construed to reach none of these controversies, excepting those in which a State may be Plaintiff. The ordinary rules for construction will easily decide whether those words are to be understood in that limited sense.

CHISHOLM v. STATE OF GA., 2 U.S. 419 (1793) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

No one is saying that people can't follow the dictates of their conscience.

The first amendment prohibits the government from taking any action which inhibits the free exercise of religion. I don't know how much clearer it must be before someone will accept it.

The establishment of a state religion would inhibit the rights of all other religions to freely express themselves.

In God We Trust is not a sectarian statement. It reflects the view of the vast majority of Americans that there is a God. If it said, "In Jesus We Trust", then I think you'd have a valid objection.

Ensuring that state actions reflect the morality and ethics of the faith of the church's adherents. This is exactly the struggle going on today with respect to issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the like.

Up until the 1960's, our culture was saturated with religion. I have recently become a Civil War buff, so I will reference that time period as an example. The letters from soldiers to their loved ones, the addresses of many government officials, and even the President's statements at Gettysburg and his 2nd Inaugural all point to belief in God and his providential hand in our country's affairs. A more recent example was the statement "In God We Trust" being added to our money as recently as 1954.

The motto is so theologically ambivelent as to be worthless. That's why I would not fight to keep it on the coin if a serious effort were made to remove it. I generally believe the government doesn't need to be giving religious advice. My support is more for collective religious expression rather than conscious direction given to the minority. That, in my view, infringes on the minority's rights to freely practice their religion.

A discussion of our religious heritage must include the religious organizations that were a major part of that heritage. So, no, I don't believe the government would be the sole arbitor of what our religious heritage is, but it would have a voice in the discussion.

Yes. Obvious, the Roy Moore/Alabama headlines caught everyone's eyes. But a similar battle happened in an adjacent county to where I live.

Again, I believe there's a difference between religious expression in the public square, and coercive or suggestive influence on the minority. As for taking religious suggestion, you are correct - I listen to Christ and the teachers he has given me in my local church, never the government. However, as I stated, the purpose of public displays is not so much to govern the minority or even instruct the majority on its own doctrines, but rather for the majority of a community to express their shared religious heritage.

Its not an idea that's been outright articulated, but rather an assumption that seems to underlie much of the vitriol I've read and seen from strident church/state separation advocates. I'm not demonizing anyone. I, too, develop convictions and declare my beliefs based on unspoken assumptions. It is human nature to do so, most times without realizing we are doing so.

Where did I state that the government should decide what people's religious beliefs are, and then express them? I stated that the people would do so. I was speaking of community-based expressions such as nativity scenes on public lands (a historical sore spot for my own town in particular). You seem to be reading a great deal into my statements that I have not actually said. No, I do not believe our religious obligations can be given over to the government. Most religious obligations are inherently private (prayer, Bible study, etc.). Yes, of course, we give an account of ourselves to God. I don't see what that has to do with public religious expression.

God still expects men to follow the truth. He grants freedom/free will to reject it. I don't advocate the state demanding adherance to a particular religion.

God calls men to spread the truth. It is not God's exclusive responsibility to inform men of His truth.

In action, yes. In thought and heart, no.

The government offends my conscience when it supports the execution of the unborn. Under Democratic administrations, this has occurred. The government offends my conscience when it creates secret prisons and puts people there to rot without a public trial to prove their guilt. The government offends my conscience when it sends terror suspects to foreign nations for torture. The government offends my conscience when it taxes the inheritance of a dead citizen who already paid taxes prior to obtaining what is being passed on.


That was actually my point. If you are serious about doing so, then the separation of church and state evaporates.

I prefer to read and interpret the Constitution as it is written. Historical context is valuable, but often the historical context is interpreted in accordance with one's convictions.

[quote=FredFlash]

First, where did you get the silly notion that civil government has authority to decide what the people's religious convictions and then assume the duty to express them? Do you believe that one's religious obligations can be delegated to a third party. I thought it was a tenet of Christianity that one had to account to God for his faith.

You seemed to be implying it.

You mean the majority of the people. Right? Religious truth is determined by numbers? Right?

Who pays for the accquistion, installation and maintanace of these community-based religious expressions? Public tax dollars?

Sorry about that.

I'm trying to make sure you're not trying to disguise civil authority over religion as public religious expressions.

What vitriol? Can you provide some examples?

Can you provide the names of these strident church/state separation advocates?