Scripture is for teaching, among other things according to 2 Timothy 3:16. We are to teach others about the will of God! God doesn't proscribe any political party. He would see both the Republican and Democrat Parties totally lacking! However, we're taught to do our civil duty, that being to be good citizens. Likewise, we're not to be apathetic (slothful) in our lives. Christians are to be active and good citizens setting the example for others which can lead to salvation. (Bad citizens are not the model for good Christians! That's the point).
(By scriptural discernment and prayer God will show us for whom to vote if we only listen.)
However, Christians have a roadblock! The roadblock was institutionalized by well-meaning Godly people sometime after the nations founding. That lie, implanted by the Deceiver, is called "the wall of separation of church and state" and Thomas Jefferson, the Deist, was the author of that!. This "separation" IS NOT part of the Constitution to the surprise of many. The First Amendment grants religious rights, not abridges nor controls them: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In clearer terms that means that there shall be no "state" religion and citizens can worship freely with no government interference!
I contend that the modern interpretation of this amendment in fact establishes a religion! By removing God as "anyone understands him" from the public arena, the government has established atheism as the official religion, which in practice, is called "secular humanism". From evolution taught in schools to moral relativism, that's all encompassed in our state sponsored religion. However, that's not the argument to be pursued this instant. The point is that there must not be a wall of separation between church and state!
Since the U.S. Constitution did not have a clause nor an amendment with that guarantee, where did it originate? All thirteen colonies at one time had a "state religion" endorsed in their charters. The First Amendment was not ratified until Dec 1791. At that time 12 of the 13 states still had a "state religion". The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, finally disallowing state religions in terms of the "equal protection" clause: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.". However, New Hampshire and North Carolina did not change their charters until the 1870s. Hence, it's readily seen that The U.S. Constitution never eliminated "state religions"!
Where did the "wall of separation" originate? Non-state religious denominations, mainly Baptists were jailed for preaching almost anywhere because of state sanctioned denominations. The "Traveling Church" started in Kentucky by the Craig family from Virginia who were driven from Virginia for preaching the gospel there. Their sermons were actually preached through jail house bars!
In the early colonies people were jailed for missing church without excuse! The governor often passed judgment on the violator and issue a warrant for arrest.
In southern states church tithes were taxes paid to the parish. The monetary exchange was tobacco! The vicars in Virginia would even teach landowners how to grow better tobacco crops to obtain more tithes (taxes) for the parishes!
"State churches" were an institution in America. Baptists complained to Thomas Jefferson who wrote to the Danberry Baptists in 1802 (11 years after The First Amendment was ratified) that: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. " That was Jefferson's take. He did not write The First Amendment! James Madison was the author... not Jefferson!
"State Churches" were hated by many! The "Holy Roman Empire" was ruled by emperors who held allegiance to the Roman Catholic Pope. In matters of religion and state, the Pope was the supreme authority! With that authority there was much abuse. In England Queen Elizabeth I, a nominal Anglican, institutionalized the Archbishop of Canterbury as the religious leader and adviser to the monarch. The King (or Queen) was actually the leader in religious affairs. In both cases, this unholy alliance created havoc in both church and state and many pilgrims and other dissidents came to America to escape papalism on the one hand and Anglican persecution on the other! Due to the abuse of power, the alliance of the church and the state was anathema to those in other belief systems!
Did God intend that there be a wall of separation?
Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."
Philippians 4:6 "...in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God."
The astute reader can see that scripture teaches Christians to turn to God in "every thing" and "all things work together". God made no exception for civil affairs nor government! That's man's doing and by going out on his own, as man has always done, God's will has been neglected. With disobedience the world suffers chaos. We are in chaos more now than ever before because the "new state religion" is secular humanism, what the Nazis called "Positive Christianity". That doctrine removes anything Jewish and anything the world sees as negative from scripture. Jesus is still there, but only to placate, not as a savior!
What government, then, is God-ordained?
Deuteronomy 16:18 "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment."
God's will is that both civil and religious law be righteous! Judges were established in the time of Moses by God:
Exodus 18:14 "And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? 15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God: 16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws. 17 And Moses' father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. 18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. 19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: 20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. 21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: 22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee. 23 If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace. 24 So Moses hearkened to the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said."The alert reader will see here that God's "government" in civil and religious law had Him at the head with a "Supreme Court" (Moses) with Tertiary Courts (lesser judges). This is the pattern for the U.S. Court System. It is based on "Natural Law" which in turn is Mosiac Law and includes God's commandments! God's will is that we in fact have a civil government with God at its head and with God's law paramount. Not only is the government to be God-centered, but there is no wall of separation there at all! The reader can now see why "right wing Christians" abhor the 'wall of separation of church and state" because it has created an "unknown God" of which Paul spoke in Acts (to the Greeks)! America now worships that previously "Unknown God", the "God of Reason"... the God of disobedience and pleasure!
Kings were not what God had in mind! The Jews, in their disobedience, demanded to be like the other nations. They wanted kings over them to rule. God, to teach them a lesson, allowed kings, commencing with King Saul, who was appointed by God. Strangely enough, Saul assumed the position of his priest and God disowned him! Saul made unrighteous judgments. Lesson unlearned! He was deposed and a King (David) who listened to God emerged. Disobedient rulers ruled and the kingdom failed. Lesson still unlearned! God didn't intend for us to have kings, but in effect we recently seem to have one! He dabbles, as did Saul, where he should not dabble! He rules not from God's decree, but from his own confused heart.
God made a deal with Abraham. "If you people follow me and my commands, you will prosper. If you disobey my commands you will be punished." America is in disobedience and we are being punished. We suffer the consequences of ourselves. "We have met the enemy and he is us!" (Oliver Perry). Because we disobey God, we are being destroyed. Nikita Kruschev said that America will be defeated without them firing a shot. That was a message, whether he knew it or not, from God!
How do we change things? How shall we again prosper? We put God back in our lives... all our lives everywhere! Pray for it. Prayer changes things and the enemy can be defeated by God if only we have faith.
1. Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteTo the extent that some would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution--without the First Amendment--to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
While the First Amendment limited only the federal government as you note, the Constitution was later amended to protect from infringement by states and their political subdivisions the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process, and equal protection of the laws. The courts naturally have looked to the Bill of Rights for the important rights thus protected by the 14th Amendment and have ruled that it effectively extends the First Amendment’s guarantees vis a vis the federal government to the states and their subdivisions. While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments could extend the Bill of Rights' constraints to state and local governments.
2. It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement was linked to another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.
ReplyDeleteThis sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).
It is important to distinguish between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties, they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
Nor does the constitutional separation of church and state prevent citizens from making decisions based on principles derived from their religions. Moreover, the religious beliefs of government officials naturally may inform their decisions on policies. The principle, in this context, merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion; in other words, the predominant purpose and primary effect must be nonreligious or secular in nature. A decision coinciding with religious views is not invalid for that reason as long as it has a secular purpose and effect.
3. Confusion also arises because the constitutional principle is sometimes equated with a widely supported political doctrine that goes by the same name and generally calls for political dialogue to be conducted on grounds other than religion. The underlying reasons for that political doctrine are many, but three primary ones are that (1) it facilitates discussion amongst people of all beliefs by predicating discussion on grounds accessible to all and (2) it avoids, in some measure at least, putting our respective religious beliefs directly “in play” in the political arena, so we’re not put in the position of directly disputing or criticizing each other’s religious beliefs in order to address a political issue and (3) since the government cannot make laws or decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion, it makes little sense to urge the government to do just that. This political doctrine, of course, is not “law” (unlike the constitutional separation of church and state, which is), but rather is a societal norm concerning how we can best conduct political dialogue in a religiously diverse society. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the doctrine is a good idea or not and whether or how it should influence us in particular circumstances.
ReplyDeleteIt should not be supposed that the government, by remaining separate from and neutral toward religion in keeping with the Constitution, somehow thereby favors atheism over theism. There is a difference between the government (1) remaining neutral in matters of religion and leaving individuals free to choose, exercise, and express their religious views without government intrusion and (2) taking sides in matters of religion and promoting one view (whether theism [in one, any, or all its various forms], atheism, or whatever) to the detriment of others. It is one thing for the government to endorse the idea that god(s) exist or, alternatively, endorse the idea that god(s) do not exist; it is quite another for the government to take no position on the matter and respect the right of each individual to freely decide for himself.
Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://divinity.wfu.edu/uploads/2011/09/divinity-law-statement.pdf
Thank you for commenting. Of course I see your point, but am at odds with it since I believe the world would be a much better place if all practiced theism, especially the one I believe to be true. Government, however, by remaining "neutral" is favoring atheism and humanism, and consequently that's the nation's "God". Being an engineer, I don't buy much of what others accept as proven science because to believe all the theories presented as truth requires as much faith as religion. Some believe the Utopias of "isms" are better than what we have, but I believe what we have is second only to what we could have. Democracy with republicanism is good, but neither are Judeo-Christian, which I soundly believe would be best.
ReplyDelete