Separation of Church and State?

Che

Che

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
409
Hello .

Is there any good essay on why we need separation of church and state? I

searched Mises and Lewrockwell with no lucks. I would appreciate your help.
 
Last edited:
Need? It would be hypocritical for Christians not to want to enforce God's law on man. I think the accounts of Sodom & Gomorrah are strong enough warning against Christian apathy in regulating human behavior (free markets).

Free markets are the logical end of a belief in moral relativism. Individualism essentially states that individual morality trumps true morality and is thus morally reprehensible - an inherently nihilist strain of thinking. For anyone to declare individual morality trumps the will of God is absurd in the extreme and I would find it contemptable for such a person to dare call themselves a Christian.
 
Che said:
Hello .

Is there any good essay on why we need separation of church and state? I

searched Mises and Lewrockwell with no lucks. I would appreciate your help.
Click to expand...

Hi Che! Great post! I hope someone gives a link, because I was wondering the same thing. I had a Becker tell me yesterday that this country was founded on Christianity and prayer should be allowed in public schools.
 
I actually think that praying in schools should be decided at the state level. The powers not specified are reserved to the states and the people...
 
anyways.. any articles relating to issue of church/state, post a link. I need to write an essay. Thank you.
 
Che said:
wait, even in public schools?
Click to expand...

public schools should be run by the state, not by the Feds.

I'm a non-believer and never pray, and of course don't want public schools to have prayers, but from my reading of the Constitution, the Federal Government can't do anything about education, so the states should decide how it should be run.
 
Not to hard to know what the forefathers intent was if you take the whole phrase of the first amendment and look at it piece by piece to see what context its wrote in


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.


they cant make any law establishing a religion,like the church of england did or prohibiting the free exercise therof

People try to make it more complicated than it really is and try to read to deep into it when its pretty simple.

To have a state or federally established religion is to say the government runs it and dictates how it operates.So therefore when they say a teacher cant ever mention the bible in a public school is going against the individuals write to exercise there religion,because as long as a individual decides he wants to mention the bible then he has the right to,but if the government says he has to teach the bible or to the other extreme and say that he cannot if he wants to,both are against the constitution because its ment to protect the individuals right to do as they see fit
 
 
virgil47 said:
The articles you've shown are some of the most leftist propaganda I've ever seen. They say up is down and down is up. Hmmm, where have I heard that before. LOL. Nice try comrade.
Click to expand...

The letter was written by Barry Goldwater, a true conservative. How is this leftist propaganda?
 
As someone who comes from England, I find it laughable when the modern liberals in America scream "separation of church and state!!!111!!" and have no idea what it actually means.

Talking/legislating about morality, God etc. isn't the imposition of an established church. An establishment of religion is something like what we have in Britain, with the Church of England - and it's a BAD idea. The C of E is just an extension of the government.

If the American people elect legislators whom they know will be moral and encourage Godly values in government, then that is the wish of the people. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with this.
 
JohnEngland said:
As someone who comes from England, I find it laughable when the modern liberals in America scream "separation of church and state!!!111!!" and have no idea what it actually means.

Talking/legislating about morality, God etc. isn't the imposition of an established church. An establishment of religion is something like what we have in Britain, with the Church of England - and it's a BAD idea. The C of E is just an extension of the government.

If the American people elect legislators whom they know will be moral and encourage Godly values in government, then that is the wish of the people. Separation of church and state has nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...

But we have Satan worshipers here in the United States. They want to start the day off in public schools with a prayer through the loudspeakers and little sacrificing of a few kittens to get things off to a good start.

I'm all for religion in public schools!:rolleyes:
 
Che said:
Hello .

Is there any good essay on why we need separation of church and state? I

searched Mises and Lewrockwell with no lucks. I would appreciate your help.
Click to expand...
I just want to point out that what everybody talks about as being the "separation of church and state" is completely opposite of what it originally meant.

There can be prayer in a public school, a nativity scene in a public park, a crucifix worn by a librarian.. Theres nothing wrong with any of that..

The govt cannot interfere with any of that because as Jefferson wrote, there is a separation of church and state.. The state isnt allowed to come in and stop a public display of religion..


However, ever since 1947 that meaning has been flip flopped to mean govt has to STOP public religious expression.

If you read the constitution you will find no term 'separation of church and state' mentioned.

Here is the 1st amendment so you can make up your own mind:

1st Amendment - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note


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.
 
Kludge said:
Need? It would be hypocritical for Christians not to want to enforce God's law on man. I think the accounts of Sodom & Gomorrah are strong enough warning against Christian apathy in regulating human behavior (free markets).

Free markets are the logical end of a belief in moral relativism. Individualism essentially states that individual morality trumps true morality and is thus morally reprehensible - an inherently nihilist strain of thinking. For anyone to declare individual morality trumps the will of God is absurd in the extreme and I would find it contemptable for such a person to dare call themselves a Christian.
Click to expand...

Kludge..
You make an interesting point: But how about this?

Nowhere in the New Testament does Christ preach or ever suggest that man should enforce God's law by the sword. The story of the rich man ends with the rich man ignoring Christ's suggestion to give everything away and follow Him, but he leaves to go his own way apparently to seek another way. He wasn't too keen on having to give up riches in order to be a Christ follower.

Too many Christians would like the story to end with Christ calling the cops and locking the man away for not heeding the "law" and taking everything he owned until he followed "the law".

So is Christ the ultimate hypocrite for not enforcing his law on the rich man?

Although I don't think individual morality trumps the will of God in the Christian's case, I also don't believe that all Christians think that a Theocracy is the ultimate goal of the what was preached by Christ. It's up to every man to decide what is right for him. It's the Christian's job not to enforce God's law but to preach what God's law is and the hope is that man will choose to follow it of his own free will.

At least that's my thoughts.
 
Todd said:
Kludge..
You make an interesting point: But how about this?

Nowhere in the New Testament does Christ preach or ever suggest that man should enforce God's law by the sword. The story of the rich man ends with the rich man ignoring Christ's suggestion to give everything away and follow Him, but he leaves to go his own way apparently to seek another way. He wasn't too keen on having to give up riches in order to be a Christ follower.

Too many Christians would like the story to end with Christ calling the cops and locking the man away for not heeding the "law" and taking everything he owned until he followed "the law".

So is Christ the ultimate hypocrite for not enforcing his law on the rich man?

Although I don't think individual morality trumps the will of God in the Christian's case, I also don't believe that all Christians think that a Theocracy is the ultimate goal of the what was preached by Christ. It's up to every man to decide what is right for him. It's the Christian's job not to enforce God's law but to preach what God's law is and the hope is that man will choose to follow it of his own free will.

At least that's my thoughts.
Click to expand...

Not to mention I never read about God holding a gun to Adam's head in the Garden of Eden and say pick one, but don't pick the tree of self awareness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Trump planning sweeping cuts to State Department
Replies
1
Views
104
TheTexan
TheTexan
mtr1979
Looking for a new church
2 3
Replies
47
Views
7K
Invisible Man
I
Anti Federalist
TX-Woman with AR15 marked "Free Palestine" and small child, opens fire in Joel Olsteen church
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
FineSpeech
Angela McArdle resigns from chair position of Libertarian Party
Replies
1
Views
238
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
Identifying and Treating “Climate Anxiety”—Vermont State Agency Offers Help to the Helping
Replies
1
Views
566
PAF
PAF
Back
Top