separation of church and state - a christian perspective please.

An article published today on the world socialist website will be of interest to members of EvC (whatever their political persuasions - please don't be scared off by the S word). US Supreme Court weakens church/state separation in Ten Commandments rulingsThe author, John Andrews, argues that the separation of church and state in the US is under challenge from right-wing members of the supreme court.I find all this rather distressing, but am heartened by the fact that the Christians I have met on this forum are generally more in favour of church/state separation than the ideologues in the high court.I would be interested to know from Christian members why they think people like Scalia want to move towards uniting church and state in the US, when the major churches appear (to me) to be happy with the traditional status quo. Can any American members tell me what is the "thought on the street" amongst their congregations to this type of judicial behaviour? Does the "average Christian" want to unite church and state in the US, or is the average Christian happy with a separation?CheersMick

I'll dive in.First, let's see what is in the constitution. What is the constitutional basis for separation of church and state?I think the average christian (I consider myself one) would say that the christian faith had a big impact upon the founding father's lives and it was used as guidelines for setting up the American way of life. I don't think the founding father's ever intended to have christian sculputres, scriptures, and what have you to be eradicated from US society; or else why would they have put them there?What the founding fathers did not want was a Church of America, like England had way back in the day. That's why they put in the constitution that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion. That doesn't translate into "take the commandments out of the courthouse" in my view.

---

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.""A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."
- General George Patton Jr

quote:

---

I think the average christian (I consider myself one) would say that the christian faith had a big impact upon the founding father's lives

---

The issue of what did or did not impact the founding fathers' lives is irrelevant. The issue is how we, teh currently living, wish to organize our society today.-

quote:

---

...it was used as guidelines for setting up the American way of life.

---

The founding fathers intention was to set up a government, not a "way of life".-

quote:

---

I don't think the founding father's ever intended to have christian sculputres, scriptures, and what have you to be eradicated from US society; or else why would they have put them there?

---

No one here is advocating eradicating them from society.-

quote:

---

That doesn't translate into "take the commandments out of the courthouse" in my view.

---

And in my view it does.

I thought the issue here was "separation" of church and state? Where did this come from? Ok, what impact does a government have on an individuals way of life? Quite a bit. Sure you are. The assault has been on since 62 when they removed prayer from school. Now you want God taken out of the courtroom, prayer out of everything, and God wiped from the pledge. Ok, tell me how the commandments being presented at the front of a courthouse is congress making a law respecting the establishment of a religion and the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.What law was passed?If no law was passed, what is your argument?

---

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.""A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."
- General George Patton Jr

Yes, wouldn't you be just a bit distressed to walk into a courtroom with a sign proclaiming that 'thou shalt have no other gods before me'? If you were anything but a christian (and to be more specific, a christian who acknowledges that particular set of commandments) I think you would be.Founders intentions aside, show me how or why adding religion in any form to our government improves its ability to execute the will of the people. History suggests that we are asking for trouble for no perceivable gain.Edit: This was supposed to be a reply to Tal.This message has been edited by Alexander, 07-06-2005 01:12 PM

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

Although I would support removing the ten commandments from public buildings, particularly those involved with Justice, that particular passage should not cause anyone discomfort. After all, it only requires parity, not sumpremacy or even uniqness. It's one of the passages from the OT that seems to acknowledge multiple Gods and in fact that other Gods than the Judaic God could be equals in stature, power and merit.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Actually Jar, isn't this usually interpreted to mean that you need to abandon your belief in other gods or at least place ME, the Jewish/Christion god first?

I'm glad you brought this up. I have been trying to find which part of the US constitution is predicated on Christianity. Which part would they not have come up with had they not been Christians? I have yet to find that part myself.

Yes, there are some Jews and Christians that interpret it that way but it's not what the Bible actually says. The early parts of the of the OT are actually very polytheistic in nature. There doesn't seem to be any indication that the authors had any idea that there was only one God or that the Hebrew God was the most powerful, unchallenged and unlimited.If you look at what is said in the early parts of the OT you find many such indication. You find statements such as "I am the Lord, thy God. Note the use of Thy. That implies that other people might have other Gods.There are also many indications that the authors and people of the time saw God as connected to a geographic area. A person residing in a foriegn country wanted to worship the God of the Hebrews, so he asks for a cartload of soil to be sent to him. Without the soil from the land of Jehovah, Jehovah would have no power base in the foriegn land.This message has been edited by jar, 07-06-2005 12:59 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Much of the controversial banter has to do with interpretation of law.
The conservatives want judges who will not interpret the law but, rather, uphold it. To them, law is an absolute concept that never chnages in basic intent.The liberals believe that law is an evolving concept that changes with the times and the whims and wills of the people. They have a point in that earlier laws used to be quite draconian in nature.The conservatives have a point, however, when the maintain that law is an absolute rather than a relative concept. In other words, the will of the people is often not what is best for them. how many people would be for abolishing tough measures on speeding in certain areas, for example?Separation of church and State was designed to keep the state out of the church more than keeping the church out of the state. Of course, now that America is defined as a pluralistic relativistic society rather than a Christian absolutist moral society, religious influence will be forced out of government and limited to churches. The issue, however is whether a secular government is even capable of defining morality on relativistic terms. Human nature is such that if no absolute God is acknowledged within our mind, any other alluring concept can become a substitute for that absolute. As an example, if a family is nuts over football to the point of erecting a shrine room to the Dallas Cowboys in their basement, they may not consciously be worshipping "other gods" but they are surely subconsciously allowing for an idolatrous worship, attention, and attention to be paid to a non-deity. The same could be said for centerfold models, (who are tongue in cheek referred to as goddesses) heck even some families put their kids on a pedestal that is un necessary.This is what is mean't by having no other gods before Me. It means paying full attention to God and loving Him with your whole heart, mind, and strength. It does NOT mean doing a few little conscious easing good
deeds throughout the week and devoting entire days to football, low rider cars, or any other modern "idols" of our materialistic world.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 07-06-2005 12:12 PM

What would be an example of Law as an absolute?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

'The legislative history of the 1954 act stated that the hope was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the Creator [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism."' - David Greenberg
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067499Sure sounds like Congress was trying to establish a religion to me.

I just started reading a decision on a case relevant to the EvC debate.McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education Decision
McLean v. Arkansas Board of EducationIn that decision the judge quoted another decision which states the standard interpretation of the Establishment clause.

quote:

---

In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947), Justice Black stated:

​

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church-attendance or non-attendance. No tax, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or what ever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause ... was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

---

That looks damn close to "take the commandments out of the courthouse" to me.

quote:

---

I thought the issue here was "separation" of church and state? Where did this come from?

---

It is implicit in the Constitution. Whatever the founding fathers meant by the first amendment, we, as a society, have chosen to interpret to mean that no state agency may give the appearance of endorsement by clearly sectarian displays. If you don't like it, either get an amendment passed, or do what you are currently doing: elect officials who will choose judges who will reinterpret the Constitution.--

quote:

---

Ok, what impact does a government have on an individuals way of life? Quite a bit.

---

Your initial comment was that the founding fathers were trying to set up an "American way of life". This is not true. They took the "American way of life" as a given, not something to be set up. The founding fathers did not feel the need to write a Constitution that would impose a "way of life" on society, and they especially did not endorse writing a Constitution that would impose a "way of life" on future generation in perpetuity.At any rate, what the founding fathers did or did not intend is irrelevant. What is under discussion is how we, the currently living, decide that we are going to organize our society today.--

quote:

---

The assault has been on since 62 when they removed prayer from school. Now you want God taken out of the courtroom, prayer out of everything, and God wiped from the pledge.

---

No one advocating closing down the churches, nor mandating a set doctrine that the churches would be required to teach, nor rounding up the Christians and placing them in re-education camps. Christian have and will continue to have the right to practice their religion in peace, and even to try to proselytize with their own efforts.All anyone is trying to do is prevent the state from implicitly endorsing religion by the display of sectarian iconography.--

quote:

---

Ok, tell me how the commandments being presented at the front of a courthouse is congress making a law respecting the establishment of a religion and the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

---

It is implicitly promoting the beliefs of those who hold the ten commandments sacred.--

quote:

---

What law was passed?

---

It is in the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

Ok, tell me how the commandments being presented at the front of a courthouse is congress making a law respecting the establishment of a religion and the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

---

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.""A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."
- General George Patton Jr