Fake or Genuine Expression of Faith?

[little2add]

social media tore into First Lady Melania Trump, mocking her accent and religion and branding her everything from a hostage to a whore – all for the secular offense of reciting “The Lord's Prayer"  at the start of  a political rally or news conference. 

Is this Expression of Faith a  violation of the separation of church?

Does it offend you or your faith?

Edited February 26, 2017 by little2add

[Jack4]

No, I find no problem with it. Error has no rights.

"Separation of Church and State" itself is something wrong.   

See Taylor Marshall on it here. 

I've also found some Magisterium on it:

Error #55 condemned in the Syllabus: The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. 

Mirari vos n. 20. Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty.

Allow me to quote at length the magnificient words of Pope Leo XIII in his Enyclical Libertas:

Quote

 

17. There are, indeed, some adherents of liberalism who do not subscribe to these opinions, which we have seen to be fearful in their enormity, openly opposed to the truth, and the cause of most terrible evils. Indeed, very many amongst them, compelled by the force of truth, do not hesitate to admit that such liberty is vicious, nay, is simple license, whenever intemperate in its claims, to the neglect of truth and justice; and therefore they would have liberty ruled and directed by right reason, and consequently subject to the natural law and to the divine eternal law. But here they think they may stop, holding that man as a free being is bound by no law of God except such as He makes known to us through our natural reason. In this they are plainly inconsistent. For if - as they must admit, and no one can rightly deny - the will of the Divine Law-giver is to be obeyed, because every man is under the power of God, and tends toward Him as his end, it follows that no one can assign limits to His legislative authority without failing in the obedience which is due. Indeed, if the human mind be so presumptuous as to define the nature and extent of God's rights and its own duties, reverence for the divine law will be apparent rather than real, and arbitrary judgment will prevail over the authority and providence of God. Man must, therefore, take his standard of a loyal and religious life from the eternal law; and from all and every one of those laws which God, in His infinite wisdom and power, has been pleased to enact, and to make known to us by such clear and unmistakable signs as to leave no room for doubt. And the more so because laws of this kind have the same origin, the same author, as the eternal law, are absolutely in accordance with right reason, and perfect the natural law. These laws it is that embody the government of God, who graciously guides and directs the intellect and the will of man lest these fall into error. Let, then, that continue to remain in a holy and inviolable union which neither can nor should be separated; and in all things-for this is the dictate of right reason itself-let God be dutifully and obediently served.

36. And now to reduce for clearness' sake to its principal heads all that has been set forth with its immediate conclusions, the summing up in this briefly: that man, by a necessity of his nature, is wholly subject to the most faithful and ever-enduring power of God; and that, as a consequence, any liberty, except that which consists in submission to God and in subjection to His will, is unintelligible. To deny the existence of this authority in God, or to refuse to submit to it, means to act, not as a free man, but as one who treasonably abuses his liberty; and in such a disposition of mind the chief and deadly vice of liberalism essentially consists. The form, however, of the sin is manifold; for in more ways and degrees than one can the will depart from the obedience which is due to God or to those who share the divine power.

37. For, to reject the supreme authority to God, and to cast off all obedience to Him in public matters, or even in private and domestic affairs, is the greatest perversion of liberty and the worst kind of liberalism; and what We have said must be understood to apply to this alone in its fullest sense.

38. Next comes the system of those who admit indeed the duty of submitting to God, the Creator and Ruler of the world, inasmuch as all nature is dependent on His will, but who boldly reject all laws of faith and morals which are above natural reason, but are revealed by the authority of God; or who at least impudently assert that there is no reason why regard should be paid to these laws, at any rate publicly, by the State. How mistaken these men also are, and how inconsistent, we have seen above. From this teaching, as from its source and principle, flows that fatal principle of the separation of Church and State; whereas it is, on the contrary, clear that the two powers, though dissimilar in functions and unequal in degree, ought nevertheless to live in concord, by harmony in their action and the faithful discharge of their respective duties.

39. But this teaching is understood in two ways. Many wish the State to be separated from the Church wholly and entirely, so that with regard to every right of human society, in institutions, customs, and laws, the offices of State, and the education of youth, they would pay no more regard to the Church than if she did not exist; and, at most, would allow the citizens individually to attend to their religion in private if so minded. Against such as these, all the arguments by which We disprove the principle of separation of Church and State are conclusive; with this super-added, that it is absurd the citizen should respect the Church, while the State may hold her in contempt.

40. Others oppose not the existence of the Church, nor indeed could they; yet they despoil her of the nature and rights of a perfect society, and maintain that it does not belong to her to legislate, to judge, or to punish, but only to exhort, to advise, and to rule her subjects in accordance with their own consent and will. By such opinion they pervert the nature of this divine society, and attenuate and narrow its authority, its office of teacher, and its whole efficiency; and at the same time they aggrandize the power of the civil government to such extent as to subject the Church of God to the empire and sway of the State, like any voluntary association of citizens. To refute completely such teaching, the arguments often used by the defenders of Christianity, and set forth by Us, especially in the encyclical letter Immortale Dei,(12) are of great avail; for by those arguments it is proved that, by a divine provision, all the rights which essentially belong to a society that is legitimate, supreme, and perfect in all its parts exist in the Church.

41. Lastly, there remain those who, while they do not approve the separation of Church and State, think nevertheless that the Church ought to adapt herself to the times and conform to what is required by the modern system of government. Such an opinion is sound, if it is to be understood of some equitable adjustment consistent with truth and justice; in so far, namely, that the Church, in the hope of some great good, may show herself indulgent, and may conform to the times in so far as her sacred office permits. But it is not so in regard to practices and doctrines which a perversion of morals and a warped judgment have unlawfully introduced. Religion, truth, and justice must ever be maintained; and, as God has intrusted these great and sacred matters to her office as to dissemble in regard to what is false or unjust, or to connive at what is hurtful to religion.

42. From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther.

 

 

 

 

Disclaimer:  I am a boy in a far-off country who does not have enough knowledge of American politics. My reference to Holy Magisterium does not imply endorsement of any organization or individual (except Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, of course!).  

[little2add]

It's difficult, if not impossible to know what's in Melanie Trump's heart, if they are  really sincere when it comes to faith and prayer.

But I like the fact that the Lord's Prayer was referenced.   

We are a nation under God or once was.  

[CatherineM]

This puts me to mind of AA's idea of higher power and alcoholics that don't believe. They tell them to fake it anyway because it's important and they know that believing in something is important for recovery. 

Every Catholic has at some times felt like they were just going through the motions. Saying a rosary or going to adoration when they just didn't feel it. This campaign might have been the first time Trump was around actual people of faith. The business world and country club crowd might be a bit thin. 

He's also closer to the end than the beginning, and that can make a person revisit their ideas about faith. It's never too late. When people talk about the good thief on the cross next to Jesus, they don't say that he was just faking it. 

I'm a sinner and a hypocrite. What right do I have to say other people praying in public don't have real faith. 

[Anomaly]

As an atheist I do not believe prayer has any supernatural power.  However, I have no problem and quite like prayers that call to mind human qualities that are supportive of empathetic and kind behavior.   It's not like she was invoking fire and brimstone to smite her enemies.   The Lords's Prayer is asking for basic needs to be met, and to be mindfully forgiving and kind.   The uproar is just the new norm to find offense and act outraged towards your perceived foes.

[havok579257]

On 2/27/2017 at 0:46 PM, little2add said:

It's difficult, if not impossible to know what's in Melanie Trump's heart, if they are  really sincere when it comes to faith and prayer.

But I like the fact that the Lord's Prayer was referenced.   

We are a nation under God or once was.  

i guess why would you even question her heart and if she is sincere?  should she not get the benefit of the doubt? are we now supposed to question everyone who makes an act of faith if its real or fake?  i am not understanding why you would question if she is sincre or not?

[little2add]

6 hours ago, havok579257 said:

i guess why would you even question her heart and if she is sincere?  should she not get the benefit of the doubt? are we now supposed to question everyone who makes an act of faith if its real or fake?  i am not understanding why you would question if she is sincre or not?

politics