If no seperation of church & state....

[jack404]

Welcome Ed !

[BlackEagle]

Ed, welcome to the forum. Lots of good discussion here, among good friends who care for each other, who know guns and are happy to help people out. This place is addicting. Enjoy.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by markfh

You're wrong. "Establishment" as referred to by the founders was a direct response to the Church of England which was an "established" religion dictated by the state.

Originally Posted by Matthew 21

28 “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
“The first,” they answered.

Which is worse, to declare the Church of England to be the state religion but do nothing about it (as the UK today), or to not have an "established" state religion but to show favoritism to one religious group over others?

What is an "established" state religion but a religious group that is favored over others? Whether declared or not, favoring any religious group over others is establishing a religion.

The founders did NOT want religion to be excluded from government.

Not allowing political speech in churches violates the 1st amendment.

Your first point there is debatable, though I agree with you on it.

The second is absolutely correct. What freedom of speech is there if not free political speech by absolutely everyone?

[whirley]

If you read early American history, you'll find that the "established church" was supported by the government. Also no other religious group was allowed to own land or buildings. That was bypassed by electing members of the congregation as the property owners. When they became too old, they resigned and younger members were elected in their place. Church groups were not allowed to incorporate until Congress passed enabling laws about 1810. Our Constitution doesn't allow the "state" to give financial support to any religious group, but it also forbids government from interfering with any group in the practice of their religion. That's where it gets sticky, because some people insist that allowing religious grooups to use publicly owned facilities, even for such things as a ball game is a violation of the religious clause. That goes way back where none of the religious groups liked each other very much. For example, in many churches you will occasionally hear the ministers rant about the early Roman Church in the 14th century chaining bibles to the pillars so people couldn't take them. Actually true. A bible at that time represented the life work of perhaps 20 monks, were rare and valuable and few people could read anyway. The first book printed by Gutenberg was a bible.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by whirley

If you read early American history, you'll find that the "established church" was supported by the government.

Many state governments did have official religions for decades.

Of course, the 14th Amendment changed the whole nature of the Constitution, making it a limit on state governments that were previously limited only by their own constitutions and their people. The stuff previously disallowed to Congress now applies to all government in this country.

[45Auto]

In the 1700's, our founding fathers were well aware Europa's religious wars and persecutions. At that time, the Church of England was at best a propaganda tool for King George.

A man of faith would long for a church to build his relationship with the lord rather than an instrument of state opression and controle.

[45Auto]

To expand upon the original question, if the Official State Religion was ......... Morman (for example)............ what would change in the USA, if anything?

[ampaterry]

1. Tax money would no longer be spent to fund abortions.
2. Tax money would no longer fund "art" produced by the likes of Maplethorp or Sauron.
4. Our relationship with Israel would be rock solid.
5. We would quit kissing the behind of Muslims.
6. We would stop all the multicultural hogwash.
7. Education would gain an entirely new emphasis.
8. All citizens would be encouraged to keep a two year stock of food on hand.

Gosh, that would be horrible, wouldn't it?

If no seperation (sic) of church and state in the US:
- scientific literacy would would become a thing of the past
- medical and scientific research would stagnate and regress. American medicine would become third rate. Diseases presently under control with immunizations would see exponential, society-threatening resurgences.
- society would become increasingly dumbed down as critical thinking is forced out of education
- non-religious parents would be driven to home-school their children in order to keep them away from religious-centric indoctrination in public schools
- there would be religious tests for public office and public and private employment and fierce inter-religious battles, some violent in the tradition of religions throughout the ages, for predominance
- laws would be enacted to fulfill religious agendas...same inter-religion battles as described above
- "free speech" would not extend to criticism of religions, religious practices, or the religious. Censorship would be rampant.
- non-religious people would be shunned, persecuted, and prosecuted
- the internet, which has undoubtedly caused the rapid awakening and long-overdue expansion and visibility of the non-religious, would come under state control
- the government would fund religions
- society would be irreparably fractured
- the US would become more of the laughingstock and butt of jokes of the civilized world more than is now the case
- etc, etc...benefits to US society of having a theistic state: None whatever

"Separation of church and state" is simply a plain-language description of the Constitution's Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. What "establishment" means, under our constitutional and legal system, is what the courts--particularly the Supreme Court--say it means. What they say it means is essentially "separation."

[BlackEagle]

I've been watching this and thinking about it since I saw the OP.

I can't give all the answer I would like to give, but here's a start. Whole libraries have been written on the relationship between church and state and people have debated that subject for centuries.

Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex Rex (the Law and the King) for the King of England back in the 1600's to explain what the relationship should be between the church and state. The king later had the book publicly burned.

"The book defends the rule of law and the lawfulness of defensive wars (including pre-emptive wars) and advocates limited government and constitutionalism in politics and the "Two Kingdoms" theory of Church-State relations (which advocated distinct realms of church and state but opposed religious toleration)." (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex,_Rex )

When Joshua was standing looking over the promised land on the eve of the conquest (Joshua 5) he saw a man with a drawn sword in his hand. As a commander, he asked this warrior "whose side are you on, ours or theirs?" The warrior answered in effect, that he asked the wrong question. The warrior was the commander of the Lord's army. "Are you on my side?"

What denomination this country would be is perhaps the wrong question. There were no denominations in the New Testament church, although Paul chastises the Corinthians because some claimed to be "of Paul", others of Apollos, and others of Christ only. What there was however, was a group of people dedicated to spreading the good news of the Gospel, to carrying out the Great Commission.

Jesus Christ is described in the Bible as being prophet, priest, and king. But He himself said to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world." His kingdom is one designed to bring about what we pray for when we ask for "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven."

Christ's Kingdom has been described as a Mediatorial dominion, designed by God to be the channel or conduit by which He works in the world, through nature, the individual, family, church, and the state. God made Christ head over all things for the church...Ephesians 1:22.

Long story short, in an ideal world there would not be any particular religion or denomination. There would be a nation trying its best to find and put into practice God's standards for morality, honesty, justice, business accumen, care for each other, right use of scientific discoveries and knowledge, and any other issues that come up. The Bible talks a lot about each of these things. For starters, read through Proverbs. God invented man; He wrote an user's manual, called the Bible.

God is not interested in suppressing society or a country. He wants people to live a full, prosperous, fruitful, and enjoyable life.

There are a many historical examples of what happens when the state tries to become the church, and when the church tries to become the state. Communism has become the religion for many in this world; Nazism substituted government for God. So did the Roman emperors.

We can see the turmoil and repression in many middle east countries today where a form of religion is trying to rule the state. But that is religious people trying to run a country, not a country trying to find what God wants for it.

Apologies for the long post, but, well, 45Auto, you asked a big question. I'm only suggesting some ideas and can't begin to do justice to your question. Thanks for asking. My brain is beginning to hurt from thinking about this.

[ampaterry]

Originally Posted by nosreme

If no seperation (sic) of church and state in the US:
- scientific literacy would would become a thing of the past
- medical and scientific research would stagnate and regress. American medicine would become third rate. Diseases presently under control with immunizations would see exponsntial, society-threatening resurgences.
- society would become increasingly dumbed down as critical thinking is forced out of education
- non-religious parents would be driven to home-school their children in order to keep them away from religious-centric indoctrination in public schools
- there would be religious tests for public office and public and private employment and fierce inter-religious battles, some violent in the tradition of religions throughout the ages, for predominance
- laws would be enacted to fulfill religious agendas...same inter-religion battles as described above
- "free speech" would not extend to criticism of religions, religious practices, or the religious. Censorship would be rampant.
- non-religious people would be shunned, persecuted, and prosecuted
- the internet, which has undoubtedly caused the rapid awakening and long-overdue expansion and visibility of the non-religious, would come under state control
- the government would fund religions
- society would be irreparably fractured
- the US would become more of the laughingstock and butt of jokes of the civilized world more than is now the case
- etc, etc...benefits to US society of having a theistic state: None whatever

"Separation of church and state" is simply a plain-language description of the Constitution's Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. What "establishment" means, under our constitutional and legal system, is what the courts--particularly the Supreme Court--say it means. What they say it means is essentially "separation."

I question why someone who is so opposed to religion would come into the religious discussions here? If your intent is simply to stir up trouble, you will find success but will not enjoy the consequences.

Every single point you made above is proven to be false by one simple fact.
The united states, when it was formed and throughout most of it's history, did NOT hold the present view of "separation of church and state."
There are Judao-Christian themes and writings on most federal buildings built more than just a few years ago.
The public school system used to use Judao-Christian writings in their lessons.
We chose "In God We Trust" as our national motto.

And every single point you made was proven false as we grew to be the greatest nation on earth, and led the world in education and scientific research.

Today, we have fallen from this leadership - and today we DO have the separation you speak of.

Israel has a firm amalgamation of church and state, and has had from their formation. And Israel seems to be doing quite well in research worthy of Nobel prizes.

The problem is, people who wish to repress the United States back into an atheistic state continue to point to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and other such countries, claiming THEY are an example of what a religious state becomes, and this is simply not true. What these nations prove is what happens when a nation accepts a religion that teaches opposition to education, glorification of war and conflict, and the subjugation of women.

If we want to see the USA florish once more, we will not have a "church state", but we need a state that is ACCEPTING of the Judao-Christian teachings, and firmly OPPOSES the growth of Islam within it's borders.

Originally Posted by ampaterry

I question why someone who is so opposed to religion would come into the religious discussions here? If your intent is simply to stir up trouble, you will find success but will not enjoy the consequences.

?? Question was asked and I assume sought forthright opinions rather than just those consistent with prevailing sentiments. Those are my beliefs, straightforwardly stated, in response to the OP's question. "Stiring up trouble" here would be in the eye of (and perhaps generated by) the beholder. As to the threat dire consequences for responding frankly to the original question...why stir up trouble?

[ampaterry]

Originally Posted by nosreme

?? Question was asked and I assume sought forthright opinions rather than just those consistent with prevailing sentiments. Those are my beliefs, straightforwardly stated, in response to the OP's question. "Stiring up trouble" here would be in the eye of (and perhaps generated by) the beholder. Couldn't agree more about some of the threat posed by Islamic expansion, at least of the militant, woman-hating, other-religion-hating, "sharia"-focused types. As to the threat dire consequences for responding frankly to the original question...why stir up trouble?

Your answers to the OP indicate you are opposed to religion of any sort, and leave absolutely no doubt about that due to the horrid consequences you gave of a religious state.
This raises the question of why you are in the religious discussions at all, and that is the question I posed.

Let me give you a simile;
Let us suppose that a member posted in the handgun section asking for opinions of the S&W Model 29.
So, a James Brady type registers here, goes to that thread, and TRASHES this weapon based on their opinion that NO ONE should own a handgun at all.
Would their opinion be of ANY help WRT the OP?

Does that make it clearer to you?
IOW, those that have atheistic beliefs, OPPOSED to religion of any sort, need to stay out of the religious area here.

[Twicepop]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

Which religion would become the official state religion of he USA if we no longer have the seperation of church & state? Of course it would be Christian, but which one? should we sellect our state religion by voting, or maybe it should be the religion of our president. I'm sure there must be some interesting ideas.

Show me if you would please where it says that we have a separation of church and state.

Originally Posted by Twicepop

Show me if you would please where it says that we have a separation of church and state.

The answer to that standard challenge appears at the bottom of my response above to the OP, and in other responses further up.

[ampaterry]

Originally Posted by Twicepop

Show me if you would please where it says that we have a separation of church and state.

It is not there, to the horror of liberal atheists who WANT it there.

Activist judges have recently (compared to the age of the constitution) made a series of decisions that PRETEND the non-establishment clause means 'separation'. This was not, of course, the original intent of the constitution, which is quite evident by the strong Judao-Christian influences in the decor of earlier Federal buildings, the public school system, our monetary design and our national motto.

But, thanks to these judges, we are well on the way to a complete separation of our nation from Christian values. It already is reflected in our crime rate, divorce rate, growth of sexual deviance, falling academic achievement, and general decline of morality here.
Madaline Maurine O'hare would be so proud - if she were not otherwise occupied trying to beat the heat.

[BlackEagle]

There is a major difference between freedom of religion and "freedom from" religion.

The former is what the founding fathers intended, so that no particular church would be favored over another. As already said, they had just come from a country in which the king called the religious tune and made sure the country fell into line, using military force where necessary.

In Europe, the church was calling the tune for the state; the Inquisition was one of the means used to make the people toe the line.

Freedom from religion is what Terry is addressing--a relatively recent development prompted by athiests who bring lawsuits against traditional values using twisted interpretations of the Constitution. Their intention is to squash freedom of expression and freedom to practice the Christian religion openly.

[ampaterry]

Oddly, this attack is always centered upon Christianity.
Christian kids are prohibited from having a prayer at commencement speeches, for instance.
But at the same time, Wiccan's are invited into the public school classroom to educate the children about their beliefs.

And Muslims are invited into public school classrooms to educate the children about their beliefs.

BOTH of these last two have happened within 20 miles of where I live, and no "separation" backers have had one word of complaint.

[BlackEagle]

True, Terry;
I guess I was disregarding the false religions in my thinking. Satan wants to squash Christianity any way he can, including promoting false religions.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by nosreme

If no seperation (sic) of church and state in the US:
- scientific literacy would would become a thing of the past
The Scientific Revolution was the direct result of Christian men (Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Brahe, Descartes, Galileo, etc.) and the whole western world working from a Christian worldview.
- medical and scientific research would stagnate and regress. American medicine would become third rate. Diseases presently under control with immunizations would see exponential, society-threatening resurgences.
Are you assuming that Christian Science is the dominant religion of the United States? Edward Jenner--the man who scientifically described the first vaccination--attributed the vaccination to God with himself simply being the means.
- society would become increasingly dumbed down as critical thinking is forced out of education
OK, this one is a joke, right? Right? You don't seriously see "critical thinking" as a skill taught in the public school system, right? In the land of multiple choice standardized tests where regurgitation of information is the goal and thinking beyond the "comprehension" order is wholly unnecessary
- non-religious parents would be driven to home-school their children in order to keep them away from religious-centric indoctrination in public schools
This one I agree with wholeheartedly. And a lot of religious parents would do the same.
- there would be religious tests for public office and public and private employment and fierce inter-religious battles, some violent in the tradition of religions throughout the ages, for predominance
Not much of a change then, huh? We have two elected members of the Federal govermnet who openly admit to being Muslim. Just two. And I don't think I've ever seen a presidential candidate who didn't claim to be some kind of Christian. Shoot, Pete Stark of California is the only open atheist ever in Congress.
- laws would be enacted to fulfill religious agendas...same inter-religion battles as described above
We see this anyway. Don't think for a second that atheism isn't a religion.
- "free speech" would not extend to criticism of religions, religious practices, or the religious. Censorship would be rampant.
We call it "hate speech," and we're already being censored for it.
- non-religious people would be shunned, persecuted, and prosecuted
If they were to commit a crime, they may be prosecuted. But shunned? Seriously? You think you might not get to eat lunch at the cool kids' table?
- the internet, which has undoubtedly caused the rapid awakening and long-overdue expansion and visibility of the non-religious, would come under state control
Are you seriously that ill-informed? The internet is under state control. Has been since it was developed.
- the government would fund religions
Like Planned Parenthood?
- society would be irreparably fractured
We are *such* a united society as it is; any kind of disagreement would shatter our dreams of world peace
- the US would become more of the laughingstock and butt of jokes of the civilized world more than is now the case
Such a terrible thing. I do in fact spend all my time worrying what others think of me, especially those I've never met and never will.
- etc, etc...benefits to US society of having a theistic state: None whatever

I started off responding to each complaint as though there were merit and we were debating, but I eventually began to see all of this as fluffy argument without substance. And I responded in kind.

Again, I like the separation we currently have. But I'm not going to off on some doomsday prediction nonsense like this.

I should have just gone to bed an hour ago.

[tcox4freedom]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

I started off responding to each complaint as though there were merit and we were debating, but I eventually began to see all of this as fluffy argument without substance....

All arguments against the TRUTH usually are. God's Word of TRUTH is forever settled in Heaven. Soon, it will be settled here in the Earth.

-

[BlackEagle]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

I started off responding to each complaint as though there were merit and we were debating, but I eventually began to see all of this as fluffy argument without substance. And I responded in kind.

Again, I like the separation we currently have. But I'm not going to off on some doomsday prediction nonsense like this.

I should have just gone to bed an hour ago.

Well, Josh, I'm glad you didn't. It made interesting reading.
I saw the post before I put my .02 in, but decided not to address it directly.

I think of Proverbs 26:4-5:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

I followed the first verse, you followed the second.

[Model195Fan]

markfh,

Thank you for posting. As you know, the Constitution does not call, explicitly or implicitly, for separation of church and State. Nor does it prohibit an establishment of religion by any of the States. Rather, in the face of a handful of State-established religions, it prohibited the federal Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. Congress could thus neither outlaw existing or future State establishments of religion, nor make one itself. Furthermore, it could make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof (of religion).

Thank you for continuing to remind us of the actual words of the Constitution. It is needed.

195

[45Auto]

The comments about Islam, remind me of the life and times of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
After WWI and a war with the Greeks, Ataturk became president of Turkey. As president, Ataturk believed that excessive religion in government was holding Turkey back from becoming a modern state. Leading a new modern age, Ataturk made it illegal for women to wear a chador in public and he outlawed the fez for men. It was not that Ataturk made Islam itself illegal, he only wanted to free Turkey from the burdens of a religious government.
To provide some historic background on the issue, it must be remembered that in his younger years, Kamal was an Ottoman Army officer. The Empire was both extremely religious and extremely corrupt. This was largely to blame for the backwardness of their empire.
Now forward to today. The secular Turkish Govt. founded by Ataturk has been a great blessing to the region. For example, prior to 1918 the Turks considered it their religious duty to hold and control Palestine. Now, the modern secular Turks see no reason to be militarily involved in the issue. If the Turks had been hell bent on recapturing Palestine, there might not be a modern state of Israel.

Let’s all pray that the secular vision of Kamal Ataturk will continue into the future.

[Archie]

I suggest we - the United States - already has a state religion.

Secular Humanism - a sect of Marxism or Leftism - is the strongest 'religion' in the United States.

The main tenets of the sect are materialism, self-centeredness, a feeling of entitlement and a general disregard for any authority other than one's self. And - it is sponsored by tax collection from the general public.