separation of church and state

[myduwigd]

As a Christian i believe that GOd should be the head of our state. That said, I dont think that you can bring religion out of politics. The mere fact that Christians are in politics and making moral decisions denies the possiblity of severing church and state.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='myduwigd' date='Jan 11 2005, 01:28 PM'] As a Christian i believe that GOd should be the head of our state. That said, I dont think that you can bring religion out of politics. The mere fact that Christians are in politics and making moral decisions denies the possiblity of severing church and state. [/quote]
"separation of church and state" has been taken out of context by terroristic judges and the media.

I think this site makes some good points: [url="http://www.trueintel.com/kerry02.asp"]http://www.trueintel.com/kerry02.asp[/url]

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Guest JeffCR07]

Ultimately, it is not possible. In any government, someone or some group is "the State" and no person is untouched by religion, for Natural Law is a derivation of the Divine Law, and all people have the Natural Law written in their being.

[cathqat]

It is not possible to have a government without philosophical or religious presuppositions. And those will be either compatible with or antithetical to Christianity. Here in the U.S., I do not think they're compatible. But I don't think a state must be actually confessional to work.

[thessalonian]

It does not seem wise to me to totally secularize.


Psalms 33:12
Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance.

Psalms 47:8
God reigns over the nations,
God sits on His holy throne.

Psalms 115:2
Why should the nations say,
"Where, now, is their God?"

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 11 2005, 03:28 PM'] It is not possible to have a government without philosophical or religious presuppositions. And those will be either compatible with or antithetical to Christianity. Here in the U.S., I do not think they're compatible. But I don't think a state must be actually confessional to work. [/quote]
please note that my previous post was not saying that it is impossible to have a non-confessional state, but rather, that it is impossible to "seperate" God from government, as God cannot be "seperated" from any person, and government always relies on some person, regardless of whether it is an individual or a group.

[FilmGuy127]

I think it should be imerative to seperate religion from government... As long as there are diffrent faiths and the government is supposed to represent all of the people there should be no religion involved whatsoever and decisions for the people should be made for the common good, not faith driven moral or ethical reasons. That said, it is impossible to seperate religion from the people who work for the government, but it is their duty as public servants to serve the common good, not the common god.

Edited January 11, 2005 by FilmGuy127

[thessalonian]

"As long as there are diffrent faiths and the government is supposed to represent all of the people there should be no religion involved whatsoever and decisions for the people should be made for the common good, not faith driven moral or ethical reasons. "


What you propose asks the Christian to check his beliefs in at the door as he heads in to the Senate Chambers. That in itself requires that a Christian not be a part of that government if he really and truly believes in Christianity. Thus denying them representation. My faith is inseperable from what I truly believe is for the commone good. Therefore if I ever were a part of Government I would be denying my faith to ignore it and vote against it.

Edited January 11, 2005 by thessalonian

[FilmGuy127]

when you walk into that senate chamber you are the represenative of everyone from your state... people who believe the same as you and people who believe diffrently... how else can you serve these people without a certain amount of seperation of your personal beliefs.

Edited January 11, 2005 by FilmGuy127

[cathqat]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 11 2005, 05:33 PM'] please note that my previous post was not saying that it is impossible to have a non-confessional state [/quote]
I know. I was just expressing some of my own thoughts.

[Socrates]

[quote name='FilmGuy127' date='Jan 11 2005, 05:59 PM'] I think it should be imerative to seperate religion from government... As long as there are diffrent faiths and the government is supposed to represent all of the people there should be no religion involved whatsoever and decisions for the people should be made for the common good, not faith driven moral or ethical reasons. That said, it is impossible to seperate religion from the people who work for the government, but it is their duty as public servants to serve the common good, not the common god. [/quote]
It is impossible to entirely separate beliefs/values from public policy in areas where these involve moral judgments.
It would be wrong for a Catholic or Christian in government to abandon his Christian morals when making a decision that will involve moral values.
If he abandons all Christian ethics/morals when making such a decision, he is not acting for the common good (which should be the goal of government).
If the person in government abandons Christian ethical and moral principles, he does not in fact act "neutrally," but must adopt other, non-Christian principles.
If the government leader does not act according to the laws of God, he acts according to his own whims or according to godless principles.
One cannot rule in a "values-free" manner, but must always act according to some values, even if these are the values of atheism, the desire of the masses, or his own whims.

Many liberals think religion and "religious values" should be entirely removed from government. Religion, it is claimed, is the root of all the world's evils.

For an example of a government based entirely on atheistic principles and devoid of any religion, look at the massive evils and complete failure of the atheistic communist regiemes, which have been responsible for more deaths and suffering than any other systems in the history of the world!

How quickly we forget!

Edited January 11, 2005 by Socrates

[FilmGuy127]

your right about communisim... and in the perfect world of the theoretical even communisim worked... im not saying that its possible to have a government completely seperate. But having a degree of seperation is important.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='FilmGuy127' date='Jan 11 2005, 06:17 PM'] when you walk into that senate chamber you are the represenative of everyone from your state... people who believe the same as you and people who believe diffrently... how else can you serve these people without a certain amount of seperation of your personal beliefs. [/quote]
Your brain does not have to turn to relativistic mush to serve your constituents. The whole purpose of elections is so that they know what you believe and how you will vote. If you vote and they feel you are not representing them then they vote you out. This country is in the mess it is in because people are not willing to take moral stands on issues. If a country does not base it's laws on morality (which is actually common among mankind, see romans 2:15, God's laws are written on all men's hearts) then it is doomed. The great roman and greek societies crashed because they threw morality out the window. Interestingly enough one of the last things they started accepting was homosexuality.

Edited January 11, 2005 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

[quote name='FilmGuy127' date='Jan 11 2005, 06:22 PM'] your right about communisim... and in the perfect world of the theoretical even communisim worked... im not saying that its possible to have a government completely seperate. But having a degree of seperation is important. [/quote]
Where did communism work? It cannot work in man's fallen state.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='FilmGuy127' date='Jan 11 2005, 06:17 PM'] when you walk into that senate chamber you are the represenative of everyone from your state... people who believe the same as you and people who believe diffrently... how else can you serve these people without a certain amount of seperation of your personal beliefs. [/quote]
I'm not sure how much political philosophy or political theory you have taken, but this quote clearly pegs you as an adherent to the "representative" model of government.

This is only one of multiple viable options, and I might add that it is not the view that the Founding Fathers held. The Founders, as evidenced in the first 10 letters of [u]The Federalist Papers[/u] were almost exclusively followers of the "Trustee Model" of government.

Under this model, the elected official does [i]not[/i] need to represent his constituency in the kind of proportionalist manner proscribed in your post, but rather, it is understood that the polity has elected the official for his exceeding wisdom and his ability to make the besat possible decision. Thus, the official is elected to do as he sees most fit. If that happens to be a course of action determined by his religion, or even a religious course of action, that is entirely his perogative, and, should the polity deem him unfitting to serve a further term, then he will not be re-elected.