Defense Against Separation of Church and State


#1

Today I had a discussion with two of my friends who massively support separation of church and state. Your thoughts? Views of the Church with quotes? How can I convince others that without God we are lost?

Also, later I had a thought that without any religious affiliation a government would be affiliating with atheism.

In the actual discussion these two people said that the US government strongly encourages separation of church and state. Your thoughts?

Also one of them stated that since the time of the US founding fathers, “times have changed” and so obviously separation of church and state is ultimately necessary.

Please putforward all thoughts with quotes from the church, US founding fathers, and all necessary things.


#2

I have mixed feelings about this because----
From what I understand there is a bill before the senate about not speaking hateful things specifically about homosexuals. Now I am all for that but here lies the problem. This will also mean that a minister/priest cannot preach about homosexuality being a sin and going against God’s Word.:frowning: So, speaking the truth about God could land a minister/priest in trouble with the law.:frowning:


#3

I believe that’s only if he preaches “out of hate.” I think priests would only be allowed to preach out of love. So I think if a priest says to go out and simply convert homosexuals, and a crazy man goes out and hurts one, then the priest might be in trouble also. But if the priest says to go out in love and keeps it specifically happy and in Christ and not hate…I think he’ll be okay.

(There’s also one radical gruop trying to push through a bill which would make all spiritual items drugs and so all priests and ministers without licenses could be arrested. I seriously think it will be turned down unless our entire government is atheist.)

In any case, we should pray for our clergy. :gopray2:


#4

I hope you are right and we do need to pray. AMEN!!!


#5

Well, for me that would depend on what “church” is connected with the state. I think I might prefer no church/state connection if it were not Catholic.

As for “hate speech” regarding preaching against Homosexuality, this could be the begining of a real war between Church and State. Why not just try to shut down the Catholic Church by legislation for “offending” various groups with it’s teachings on sin… or mere existence.


#6

As for Separation of Church and State… some interesting thing politicians and liberals don’t want you to know:
[LIST=1]
*]it is nowhere in the constitution
*]founding fathers meant for the people to do as their consciences dictated on a local level.
*]the actual wording is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In other words the federal govt may not establish a national religion. This was not to say that a town of all Lutheran settlers could not institute a live nativity as part of their holiday observance. Or that a Jewish village couldn’t hold a community passover.
*]Our forefathers were almost all Christians.
*]In #3 above we often forget about this part: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…in other words… we cannot prohibit Catholics from peaceably assembling to hold a Marian procession on May Day, or Muslims from gathering to celebrate Ramadan; etc…[/LIST]It is interesting that many lawmakers think that they can legislate on these things when clearly they can’t. However, local laws can allow for expression but cannot prohibit the exercise of religious practices. The only stipulation is that it cannot break any other laws such as developing the ME religion where it is OK to steal if you want it bad enough…:rolleyes:


#7

And was this not to prevent any one religion from establishing a tyranny over the practice of other religions?


#8

Yes… it was only to keep the government from establishing a “state” religion… not all of this no talking about God in school or no public nativity scene rules… All of that was left to the local government to decide what was appropriate for their communities.


#9

Yes… it was only to keep the government from establishing a “state” religion… not all of this no talking about God in school or no public nativity scene rules… All of that was left to the local government to decide what was appropriate for their communities.

And it is typically local governments that decide such issues.

I tend to approve of separating church and state, in schools as well. I don’t particularly want Muslim or Mormon led prayers at my children’s school and I can respect the fact that neither of those groups wish to have a Priest lead their children in prayer.

I certainly don’t want to have religious instruction from Evangelical or Fundamentalist Protestants of the Tim LeHaye ilk. And I’m guessing that they don’t want their children to say the Ave Maria in the morning.

The way we have it is simpler. Besides, there is no such separation in the UK, where they do have religion classes (and have had them for a very long time) in state schools. That hasn’t exactly caused the pews of the Church of England to overflow.


#10

The problem I have with the separation of church and state is how the liberal media presents the issues concerning it and not how it’s written in our constitution. They make it sound like separation of church and state even requires our silence on religious moral issues. For example, I’ve heard some national news reporters complaining about what the Pope is now saying about politicians who support abortion rights as a infringment on the constitutional rights of individuals who wish to support abortion. But they never mention the rights of the unborn as being a moral issue. The constitution merely states that government shall not establish any religion as the official state religion and does not prohibit it’s participation in government.


#11

Well here is a quote from our founding fathers on the subject:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

That is directly from the Bill of Rights. All it says is to keep the state out of the Church, not the other way around. The saying “Separation of Church and State” is overused and rather inaccurate.


#12

All you have to do is to look to what is happening in our northeren neighbor and you will see it doesn’t work that way. Teaching about the need to change homosexual persons is a hate crime in parts of that country no matter how you claim to love them.

In my opinion we have carried church and state separation to an extreme in this country. Its at a point where the government is becoming hostile to religion and moral codes based on judeo/christianity. Instead of true separation we have interference and establishment of a “state religion” that inshrines a code of do your own thing just so long as it has no basis in religion.


#13

This country was founded by people who weren’t particularly fond of the Catholic Church. I think it is a very good thing for us that Church and the State are separate. Imagine if the Bible were taught in public schools as truth. What about those who don’t interpret the Bible the same way- or who, like us, have more books in the it? I have seen how private Evangelical Christian schools push their positions on their students. I am glad public schools are not like that. Unfortunately, many people now interpret separation of Church and State as meaning making sure Christianity is not expressed publically. Many public schools serve meat on Fridays during Lent and don’t offer alternatives. They probably would find an alternative for a Jew on a day they served pork.


#14

Imagine if the Bible were taught in public schools as truth. What about those who don’t interpret the Bible the same way- or who, like us, have more books in the it?

Hi,
Yes I agree that would be a problem:(

I have seen how private Evangelical Christian schools push their positions on their students.

Be careful about statements such as this because catholic schools do the same.:wink: As do hebrew schools and islamic schools. You get my point.:wink:

Unfortunately, many people now interpret separation of Church and State as meaning making sure Christianity is not expressed publically

. Or to be made out as something wrong and bad:(

Many public schools serve meat on Fridays during Lent and don’t offer alternatives. They probably would find an alternative for a Jew on a day they served pork.

I bett ya you are right. Although, in our schools they serve pizza on Fridays–maybe because we live in an area that is mostly catholic.:wink:


#15

We have had kids of all different religions go to our local Catholic grade school… All variations of protestants, hindu, muslim… there was only one child that really disrupted Religion class… that was the oldest muslim girl. Her sisters were great… it was just the one. It prompts one to ask why… why send your child to a school that is so drastically different than what you want them to learn? When she was going to be a freshman at the Catholic HS, one of the kids from another Catholic grade school held a get to know each other party before school started. Her mom got all the names of the incoming freshmen from the school and sent out invitations. My oldest was invited and went to the party. The father of the moslem girl called up and asked for the student that was hosting the party (Not her parents) and SCREAMED at her about how dare she invite HIS daughter to an AMERICAN party.:frowning: The mother was so freaked out that she mentioned it when we were getting to know each other since the girl was in my son’s class in grade school. I told her about the disruptions in religion class and how she was constantly asked to leave the room for the behavior… guess we know where she learned it from… her dad! The funny thing is they have lived in our community since before the girls were born so I don’t get the AMERICAN comment.

In the high school they have even more muslims than just the one family… even boys and NONE of them have ever acted like that. If you go to a private school that is faith based, you have to expect that you will have to participate in their religion classes!


#16

I think you are forgetting about the 14th amendment, which reads (in part):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

In Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963 the Supreme Court determined that this section meant that the states must also protect the rights guaranteed under the first amendment (freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances), and therefore, could not establish state or local religions.


#17

It seems people are confusing “freedom of religion” with “freedom FROM religion”.


#18

I think it is pretty difficult to have one without the other. You are free to believe in whichever god you want to, but you are also free to not believe in all other ones. In other words, you have freedom not to be a Muslim and freedom from having their beliefs forced upon you, just as they have the same rights in regard to your belief system of choice. Semantics will not change that.


#19

You’re splitting hairs.

Yes, the phrase separation of church and state is not present, but clearly the spirit of that phrase appears in the very First Amendment you quoted, as well as the Constitutional ban on “relgious tests” for determining worthiness for public office.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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 and state.

The separation of church and state is implied by the Constitution, and this is not, IMHO, a bad thing. It’s not ideal, perhaps, but at least it guarantees (theoritically) that Uncle Sam can’t make Catholicism illegal.

Furthermore, we’ve got a fairly conservative Supreme Court right now, with a Catholic Chief Justice (nb: I make no claims about the quality of his faith or the state of his soul). If Congress attempts to pass a law that outlaws religious teachings about the evils of homosexuality (or any sinful lifestyle), I have difficulty believing it would stand up under scrutiny.

By the way, I have heard of no such law…anyone have a source on that?

Peace,
Dante


#20

Its not a matter of semantics.

Some people feel they have the right to “freedom from religion”.

They wan’t religion removed from their sight. From our decision making. From everything.

“Freedom FROM Religion” is an infringement on “Freedom OF Religion.”

To accept the first is to give up the second.

Chuck


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.