Separation of church and state OK to Christians?

This question was inspired by "The Church and Homosexual Marriage" thread, but seemed inappropriate to discuss there. So I'm opening a new thread.

---

Is it OK for people who believe in the bible to live in a country where the government is purely secular, i.e. where "church" is truly separated from "state" ?I have a very poor bible education, but I grew up Roman Catholic. It's my understanding that it's both important for people of the church to live moral lives, but also to avoid participation in amoral activities / governments. Also, it's important to evangelize--to try and help people know Jesus and God, and to help them move away from their amoral behavior.How can people of the church participate in an amoral government? How can it be OK to accept a separation of church and state?Help me understand why I don't understand. Thanks.

Sounds good to me.

This is part of my point. The second commandment speaks against freedom of religion. If Christians want others to be believers, to follow the commanments, why would they allow themselves to participate in a government where there's freedom of religion? And that's exactly what Christians do. They are told by God to exclude all other beliefs.I'm not asking if "we" should have a separation of church and state--I'm asking if Christians should be fighting to live in a country where there is NO separation of church and state.

If that's the question you want to ask, then I strongly suggest you take it to another thread. Here, I'm interested in talking about whether Christians should be fighting to live in a country where there is NO separation of church and state.Let me really be clear. I'm not asking if some Christians are fighting for it, or if you like it, or if you're bitter about it. I'm specifically asking if ALL Christians, based on the Bible, should be fighting for it.Ben

lol. I thought Christians were a lot more idealistic than this. I thought there's no compromise of God's laws like that. Where are the martyrs of our modern age?! But seriously, I'm not talking about what's the "right way" to govern a country or whatever. I'm really trying to talk about the ideals of the Christian religion, based on the Bible.So... given that, via the 2nd commandment God demands there be no no freedom of religion, and given that no people are exempt from His law, shouldn't the Christian ideaology include no separation of church and state?Ben

Jar... I was getting to your post. Yours was the hardest, so I went for it last. But I'll go here first.From Wikipedia, Now I am quite sure Arachnophilia (and you?) may have a different take on this... but from my childhood, I took this (and maybe the first commandment as well?) to mean that there's no freedom of religion--there's only one God, and you better not worship any others, OR ELSE.I've got open ears for a different view.

Jar, I think I did a poor job in my OP. There, I equated moral standards that do not match that prescribed by the Bible / Church with amoral. Poor choice of terms. I'm just trying to find terms to contrast moral standards prescribed by the Bible / Church and those that are NOT prescribed by the Bible / Church.First you say, But then say I kind of understand your view, and I probably hold one similar (although I'm not sure, because I don't put my own thoughts into this kind of terminology at all).My question is, since the Christian God judges people, since people receive punishment or reward from God, doesn't that make "good and bad", "right and wrong" the domain of religion? You already agreed that it's almost by definition, the domain of government.I'll leave the rest of your post untouched for now. Thanks for your response.

PD,I totally get what you're saying. But you're saying that religion "isn't supposed to" get mixed up in government. You didn't really explain why you think that. That's exactly the question I'm asking here. 'Cause I think Christians, if I understand Christianity right, should be saying "religion IS supposed to get mixed up in government brotha!"Ben

Sounds interesting; I would definitely be a spectator, and spectator only I hope I've made it clear by now that I'm basing my thoughts on my own understanding as a kid, and not in Bible scholarship. I understand that the two are separate, but I think both represent　something important (real-world religion?　vs. true scholarship and interpretation).With that disclaimer thrown out there again... I always had the sense that Christianity is not a religion based on individuals at all. We are God's people, a family. It's not good enought to "earn salvation" for yourself. It is not OK to turn your back on the wrongs you see, to turn your backs on the people travelling down the wrong path. That's why it's important to "help" those out who do not walk in God's light, and bring the "lost sheep" back to God's way.With that thought in mind, then I would say, yeah, they're free to screw up, but the onus is also on you (figuratively speaking) to do whatever is in your power (whether it's active testifying or simply providing a living example) to show them God's way.I'll leave my statements as is, without providing a conclusion; I'll spend more time thinking about it. Maybe it's hard to understand without specific Bible reference. If so, I'm sorry about that!

Well... just being familiar with Lam's posts, I read his question as being much more specific and practical than the question I was trying to ask. I tried to respond strongly just because I want to keep this at a more theoretical level. I don't want to talk about any country at all--I'm really only interested in understanding religious views within the umbrella of "Christianity"... Yeah that's a gross error on my part. I agree. I simply don't know enough about the subject to divide up Christianity properly. In order to talk about "bible scholarship" and personal views a.k.a. Arachnophilia & Jar, I think it's unnecessary to divide up (because we rely on the Bible exclusively). But when talking about the views of practical, existing religions, it's necessary, I agree.And I'm glad you took the "practical, existing religions" angle. 'Cause I'm interested in that as well. Would you mind elaborating a little more on these statements? Maybe it's too much work. I understand why people might choose SOCAS based on practical reasoning, or why they might loathe it based on an inability to have their idea of what is "right and wrong" promoted to the law level. But anything beyond those ideas (surely your statement about fundies fits that bill, and maybe the others) I would appreciate if you could elaborate a bit on what you mean, and what makes you think that way.Thanks!
Ben

AP,Thanks for the info. I always enjoy your Bible scholarship. Since I don't do any Bible scholarship of my own, I really don't know if you're on the mark, but I always get the feeling that you're searching for answers from a very honest perspective.With that said, some question / comments... I read the chapter in Matthew, but I still didn't understand your comment. Could you elaborate? Why would separation of religion from politics keep judiasim in tact? You can exclude all other beliefs while showing love and compassion for your enemies. Like when a mom slaps a kid's hand for stealing a lollipop; the mom loves the kid, but enforces the rules.But really, given what you've said above in your post, I don't think this really matters at all in the bigger point. I think I understand you as well as I can, and what you say sounds good to me. I tried to think about this before posting--does a lack of separation of church and state necessarily mean that we have no choice on the matter? A really practical question... but I think it's important.My idea is not that you're supposed to force people to believe in a religion. Rather, the premise I had in mind was, should Christians be demanding, based on the foundations of their religion (Bible, Church), that laws be chosen based on the laws and ethics of their religion.Does this also imply that people would be forced to believe in the same God? I just can't answer that question properly. It could go either way. For the sake of argument, I was postulating that it's possible that the belief wouldn't be mandated.