Full Version: Separation of Church and State
It should be realized that the seperation of church and state was a compromise resolution. The first amendment was revised due to the enormous controversy that surrounded it. Many in the wake of this doctrine lamented to loss of religion as a moral standard. Where they wrong? Consider this from the The Gazette of the United States, printed April 14, 1800:
"Dr. Horsley--Good God! Sir, how it shocks me when I view in this state [Virginia] the condition of our churches; those I mean, which (at present) belong to the Episcopal Church. They are a disgrace to any country from the ruinous state they are in, and on the society to which they belong, they fix a degree of impiousness. The walls are all decaying and falling down!
Rudis indigestaque moles
The tombstones dislodged and thrown down; hogs rooting into the very graves, and the bones of our ancestors will in a few years be exposed to the beasts of the fields and lie in common on the earth with those that never had the ceremony of scripture: the windows are all broken, the doors open every day which are never entered on a Sunday, and when hogs and cattle seek a shelter from the weather, they find it in the aisles and pews of our churches--Our Pastors in general badly paid and no encouragement held out for a succession of able ministers to explain to our people the duties of christians and the advantages of christianity. So much for the support and furtherance of our religion when no general assessment is imposted! But here, for Jacobinism is triumphant and unless a different temper shall soon shew itself, it will trample under foot all order, law, property, government, as it has religion; and on the ruins of these social blessing, inaugurate the demon "anarchy." From these cures I with you all exemption and am with the greatest esteem, dear sir, yours ,"
Please note that the lack of religion did not bring about the peace and freedom promised by the so called enlightened thinkers ( primarily in Paris). It brought about exactly the opposite. A short time before a religious consensus in England had produced the Bloodless Revolution. Trying to duplicate the results without religion in France brought about the orgy of blood and violence that became known as the Reign of Terror. This is where and how the term "terrorism" originated.
"The English who supported the French Revolution during its early stages (or even throughout), were early known as Jacobins. These included the young Samuel Taylor Coleridge, William Wordsworth, and others prior to their disillusionment at the outbreak of the Terror." (see hypertext below)
Religion is thought to be the cause of the notorious witch hunts of Salem. The real truth is that these people had lost their religion.
In modern times we think of witch-hunts as nothing but superstition and fear but the motives were more deliberate. Remember that Bacan’s Rebellion and the Trail of Tears were fomented by a desire for land. The law is often used by the status quo to subvert the rights of the less fortunate. The advent of slavery in the Americas was due in large part to the legal definition concerning what is called ‘real property’. People were reduced to the status of property and that excluded them from rights afforded other people. This resulted in 2% of the population of the antibellion south owning most of the land. This may seem like I’m begging the question a little but greed wasn’t eradicated when the witch-hunts stopped.
Kai T. Erikson, a professor of sociology at Yale University had this to say; “The way in which a society defines and deals with criminality reveals much about the fundamental nature of that society”. In his discussion of the political and social turmoil of the times he quotes John Josselyn who visited Boston in 1668. “He observed that people were ‘savagely factious’ in their relations with one another and acted out of jealousy and greed then any sense of religious purpose.”
The people in the area had lost their vision of their fathers as the colony being “a city on the hill” and it was replaced by the ravings of Cotton Mather describing “Fiery flying serpents…dens of lions…mounts of leopards…droves of devils. A fanatic is someone who doubles his efforts when he has lost sight of his goals. The need for a bogeyman in the absence of responsible leadership is usually at the heart of witch-hunt mentalities.
I never believed that Jerry Farwell or any of the popular evangelistic types held much of a promise of the religious revival they seek. However, the last truly grassroots campaign in America was Pat Robertson. He was poised to take the nomination form George Bush when the Tim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart scandles broke. Coincidence?
This kind of scandle mongering colored the Republican agenda throughout the Clinton administration.
I think in American politics we have lost our religion and I think that that is a very bad thing.
Jacobins
"Dr. Horsley--Good God! Sir, how it shocks me when I view in this state [Virginia] the condition of our churches; those I mean, which (at present) belong to the Episcopal Church. They are a disgrace to any country from the ruinous state they are in, and on the society to which they belong, they fix a degree of impiousness. The walls are all decaying and falling down!
Rudis indigestaque moles
The tombstones dislodged and thrown down; hogs rooting into the very graves, and the bones of our ancestors will in a few years be exposed to the beasts of the fields and lie in common on the earth with those that never had the ceremony of scripture: the windows are all broken, the doors open every day which are never entered on a Sunday, and when hogs and cattle seek a shelter from the weather, they find it in the aisles and pews of our churches--Our Pastors in general badly paid and no encouragement held out for a succession of able ministers to explain to our people the duties of christians and the advantages of christianity. So much for the support and furtherance of our religion when no general assessment is imposted! But here, for Jacobinism is triumphant and unless a different temper shall soon shew itself, it will trample under foot all order, law, property, government, as it has religion; and on the ruins of these social blessing, inaugurate the demon "anarchy." From these cures I with you all exemption and am with the greatest esteem, dear sir, yours ,"
Please note that the lack of religion did not bring about the peace and freedom promised by the so called enlightened thinkers ( primarily in Paris). It brought about exactly the opposite. A short time before a religious consensus in England had produced the Bloodless Revolution. Trying to duplicate the results without religion in France brought about the orgy of blood and violence that became known as the Reign of Terror. This is where and how the term "terrorism" originated.
"The English who supported the French Revolution during its early stages (or even throughout), were early known as Jacobins. These included the young Samuel Taylor Coleridge, William Wordsworth, and others prior to their disillusionment at the outbreak of the Terror." (see hypertext below)
Religion is thought to be the cause of the notorious witch hunts of Salem. The real truth is that these people had lost their religion.
In modern times we think of witch-hunts as nothing but superstition and fear but the motives were more deliberate. Remember that Bacan’s Rebellion and the Trail of Tears were fomented by a desire for land. The law is often used by the status quo to subvert the rights of the less fortunate. The advent of slavery in the Americas was due in large part to the legal definition concerning what is called ‘real property’. People were reduced to the status of property and that excluded them from rights afforded other people. This resulted in 2% of the population of the antibellion south owning most of the land. This may seem like I’m begging the question a little but greed wasn’t eradicated when the witch-hunts stopped.
Kai T. Erikson, a professor of sociology at Yale University had this to say; “The way in which a society defines and deals with criminality reveals much about the fundamental nature of that society”. In his discussion of the political and social turmoil of the times he quotes John Josselyn who visited Boston in 1668. “He observed that people were ‘savagely factious’ in their relations with one another and acted out of jealousy and greed then any sense of religious purpose.”
The people in the area had lost their vision of their fathers as the colony being “a city on the hill” and it was replaced by the ravings of Cotton Mather describing “Fiery flying serpents…dens of lions…mounts of leopards…droves of devils. A fanatic is someone who doubles his efforts when he has lost sight of his goals. The need for a bogeyman in the absence of responsible leadership is usually at the heart of witch-hunt mentalities.
I never believed that Jerry Farwell or any of the popular evangelistic types held much of a promise of the religious revival they seek. However, the last truly grassroots campaign in America was Pat Robertson. He was poised to take the nomination form George Bush when the Tim Baker and Jimmy Swaggart scandles broke. Coincidence?
This kind of scandle mongering colored the Republican agenda throughout the Clinton administration.
I think in American politics we have lost our religion and I think that that is a very bad thing.
Jacobins
What exactly do you want to debate? It's not clear. Is "Is religion needed for moral consensus?" your question? If so, it doesn't seem to tie in with your post which seems to be about history of religion in the US.
Please PM me with your question. Closed for now.
Please PM me with your question. Closed for now.
Here is our question to debate:
Enjoy!
QUOTE
Im concerned with the dangers of lossing religion. It has long been a source of moral and cultural stability...
Does seperation of church and state undermine morals?
Does seperation of church and state undermine morals?
Enjoy!
religion is a nice platform for agreed ethical and moral reality. but what religion is it to be, to me i would like to see a nation of chan bhuddists, we could be in-shape enlightened kung-fu masters 
but, to say hey i am christian and you are to even if you dont want to be, i will make myself president and make laws so you have to be. that is where seperation comes into play, it does not mean you cant go to church or teach your kids religion, but that in a seat of power, such as a judge, that your beliefs dont corrupt your position to a diverse group of people. or undermine it by your authority.
and no,in my opinion "good" people can exist that are not in any way religious.
have a nice day.
but, to say hey i am christian and you are to even if you dont want to be, i will make myself president and make laws so you have to be. that is where seperation comes into play, it does not mean you cant go to church or teach your kids religion, but that in a seat of power, such as a judge, that your beliefs dont corrupt your position to a diverse group of people. or undermine it by your authority.
and no,in my opinion "good" people can exist that are not in any way religious.
have a nice day.
Separation of church and state is a good thing. First of all, it isn't going to undermine and make religion suddenly disappear. It would be bad to have the two together, because soon you'd have a government acting together on one religion. This presents 2 problems:
1. They would probably favor people of their religion. (this happened prior to the Civil war with slavery and economic issues)
2. As I've interpreted over the years, it's an unwritten rule that no government can act together
1. They would probably favor people of their religion. (this happened prior to the Civil war with slavery and economic issues)
2. As I've interpreted over the years, it's an unwritten rule that no government can act together
you don't need religion to know right from wrong. I know that I shouldn't take things that don't belong to me, that I shouldn't hurt others, and all that.
personally, I think the loss of religion may be a good thing. look at the last 2000 years. religion has led to mass murder of non-believers of many faiths. (inquisistion, several crusades, slaughter of millions of indigenous americans, etc...)
the mess we are in today is because of religious zealots and radical interprtations of a holy book. perhaps religion isn't that great after all?
personally, I think the loss of religion may be a good thing. look at the last 2000 years. religion has led to mass murder of non-believers of many faiths. (inquisistion, several crusades, slaughter of millions of indigenous americans, etc...)
QUOTE
( http://www.hendersons.net/straitway/2001/03012001.htm )
In 1210 AD, Pope Innocent III unleashed "orders of fire and sword" against a group of heretics throughout Europe, mostly remembered as Cathars. Of special note, at the great city of Beziers, France there was a terrible massacre of heretics. Though the actual count will never be known, it is thought that perhaps 100,000 people were ultimately slaughtered. The papal forces besieged Beziers and all inside were commanded to surrender and repent. The heretics inside, also known as Waldensians or Albigensians, were believers in a widespread form of gnosticism which threatened the greedy and materialistic goals of the Papacy.
According to a Catholic source, "Caesarius of Heisterbach: Medieval Heresies," after the city was taken, at a cost in life of thousands of defenders, about 450 heretics were "examined" by the inquisitors and many of them claimed to be Christians rather than being heretics and would not repent. Others claimed to be good Catholics and did not want to die. Fearing the possibility that these were lying, must have caused the infamous phrase to first be uttered. In Latin, "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" or "Kill them all. God will know His own."
In 1210 AD, Pope Innocent III unleashed "orders of fire and sword" against a group of heretics throughout Europe, mostly remembered as Cathars. Of special note, at the great city of Beziers, France there was a terrible massacre of heretics. Though the actual count will never be known, it is thought that perhaps 100,000 people were ultimately slaughtered. The papal forces besieged Beziers and all inside were commanded to surrender and repent. The heretics inside, also known as Waldensians or Albigensians, were believers in a widespread form of gnosticism which threatened the greedy and materialistic goals of the Papacy.
According to a Catholic source, "Caesarius of Heisterbach: Medieval Heresies," after the city was taken, at a cost in life of thousands of defenders, about 450 heretics were "examined" by the inquisitors and many of them claimed to be Christians rather than being heretics and would not repent. Others claimed to be good Catholics and did not want to die. Fearing the possibility that these were lying, must have caused the infamous phrase to first be uttered. In Latin, "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" or "Kill them all. God will know His own."
the mess we are in today is because of religious zealots and radical interprtations of a holy book. perhaps religion isn't that great after all?
A comparison to the present day UK might be instructive here.
We still have an established Church, the Church of England, which I think in the sectarian definition is Episcopalian (but I'm not sure, as such deifinitions are less necessary here, as we have far fewer denominations active in the UK).
So technically, the CofE (as it is almost universally known) is at the very centre of the State and Constitution; new Members of Parliament must swear loyalty to the monarch and to God; the Monarch's official position is that they are head of State and head of the CofE simultaneously, and are one because they are the other; senior bishops in the CofE are entitled to sit in the Upper House of our bicameral legislature, where other denominations or religions are strictly by invitation only; etc.
Yet Church attendances in the UK are far, far lower than in the USA. Most recent surveys agree that around one in ten British citizens actively worship at ANY religion on a regular basis (i.e. more than once or twice a year), a statistic that includes Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Catholicism (and all other Christian denominations) and so on.
As a population, we are staggeringly secular by American standards (a factor that is common to the whole of Europe, very little of which claims the levels of religious belief or attendance seen in the USA). We have most of the same problems of 'morality' e.g. some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the developed world (behind the USA), increasing drug use; the death of deference to authority based on social rank, authority, or age; seemingly high crime rates (with the notable, if obvious, exception of gun crime); the same perception of the impending collapse of civilised society lamented by conservative social commentators since, ooh, at least the Roman Empire; etc.
NB I say conservative, because the desire to conserve something implies a belief that it is better the way it is now (or used to be) than it will be (or is now) if things carry on the way they are going (or already have).
Yet we have no separation of Church and State analogous to that in the USA (or even France, where I'd challenge the idea that the revolution was bloody because it was secular).
So, if morality is a function of the unity of Church and State, how come we are in a similar societal pickle to the one the USA finds itself in?
And, if secularism is the problem, and we are so much more secular than you are, how come you seem to be a little deeper in the pickle than we are? (NB, the French and Italians more religious than the British, yet have the same separation of Church and State as the USA, yet they come out better on most of the 'social collapse indicators' than either of our two countries. Frankly, I suspect that the application of laissez-faire economic principles to social problems has more to do with these issues than either religion or morality, but that's a topic for another thread.)
Perhaps the perception of moral decay has more to do with errors of perception (including, these days, sensationalist journalism) than with any real impending social disaster?
We still have an established Church, the Church of England, which I think in the sectarian definition is Episcopalian (but I'm not sure, as such deifinitions are less necessary here, as we have far fewer denominations active in the UK).
So technically, the CofE (as it is almost universally known) is at the very centre of the State and Constitution; new Members of Parliament must swear loyalty to the monarch and to God; the Monarch's official position is that they are head of State and head of the CofE simultaneously, and are one because they are the other; senior bishops in the CofE are entitled to sit in the Upper House of our bicameral legislature, where other denominations or religions are strictly by invitation only; etc.
Yet Church attendances in the UK are far, far lower than in the USA. Most recent surveys agree that around one in ten British citizens actively worship at ANY religion on a regular basis (i.e. more than once or twice a year), a statistic that includes Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Catholicism (and all other Christian denominations) and so on.
As a population, we are staggeringly secular by American standards (a factor that is common to the whole of Europe, very little of which claims the levels of religious belief or attendance seen in the USA). We have most of the same problems of 'morality' e.g. some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the developed world (behind the USA), increasing drug use; the death of deference to authority based on social rank, authority, or age; seemingly high crime rates (with the notable, if obvious, exception of gun crime); the same perception of the impending collapse of civilised society lamented by conservative social commentators since, ooh, at least the Roman Empire; etc.
NB I say conservative, because the desire to conserve something implies a belief that it is better the way it is now (or used to be) than it will be (or is now) if things carry on the way they are going (or already have).
Yet we have no separation of Church and State analogous to that in the USA (or even France, where I'd challenge the idea that the revolution was bloody because it was secular).
So, if morality is a function of the unity of Church and State, how come we are in a similar societal pickle to the one the USA finds itself in?
And, if secularism is the problem, and we are so much more secular than you are, how come you seem to be a little deeper in the pickle than we are? (NB, the French and Italians more religious than the British, yet have the same separation of Church and State as the USA, yet they come out better on most of the 'social collapse indicators' than either of our two countries. Frankly, I suspect that the application of laissez-faire economic principles to social problems has more to do with these issues than either religion or morality, but that's a topic for another thread.)
Perhaps the perception of moral decay has more to do with errors of perception (including, these days, sensationalist journalism) than with any real impending social disaster?
to say that religion is what makes people "good" is flawed. i am sure it would not take very much study to find that out. more or less i attribute this to a spotlight effect, or to be more plain on it, a ticket to fight a battle. here in the u.s we have almost militant religious groups, very bent that thier opinion is the savior of mankind. the kkk's glorius heritage goes back to saint michel and the nazis(i dont know), but with 27,000 or so known denomination of just chrisianity the need for laws that install diversity are vary required. you would have questions on your job applications that ask you what religion you belong to, that would becom part of your getting hired, and in my opinion leading to ghettos of certin religious sects like in ireland, even forms of open warfare. the law itself was emplaced by religious people for a reason in that they were smart and noticed thier diversity, and overall faith of there respective peoples.
this is not a law to destroy religion but to maintain america not only for what it stands for, but to get past the hurdles you find in history such as religious persucution.
this is not a law to destroy religion but to maintain america not only for what it stands for, but to get past the hurdles you find in history such as religious persucution.
Lets back up here. For one thing Jefferson coined the phrase, 'seperation of church and state', does not appear in any official document. It was a letter to a Baptist minister that was concerned that the Congregationalists would become the national church. Jefferson was reassureing him that this is impossible because of the 'wall of seperation' built into our Constitution. Jefferson considered religious liberty to be essential to a Republic, he would never suggest, much less affirm, ceretainly not argue that religion and morality had nothing to do with one another.
It is astonishing how little Americans know about the people who founded this country. It is impossible to prove that they were trying to protect the country (synonymous with the people) from religion. It is exactly the opposite! George Washington in his farwell had this to say about religion and morality:
" Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."
Ask George Washington the same question I did and this is the kind of an answer you will get. I have a problem asking comprehensive questions, if you dont believe me just ask the moderaters. So here is a couple of questions for a debate; Is religion and morality nessacary for happiness? Can morality be maintained without religion? Can a politician be trusted to keep his word without religious conviction? Can a person be considered patriotic who subverts religion?
Lets debate that! We allready know what George Washington thinks
It is astonishing how little Americans know about the people who founded this country. It is impossible to prove that they were trying to protect the country (synonymous with the people) from religion. It is exactly the opposite! George Washington in his farwell had this to say about religion and morality:
" Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion."
Ask George Washington the same question I did and this is the kind of an answer you will get. I have a problem asking comprehensive questions, if you dont believe me just ask the moderaters. So here is a couple of questions for a debate; Is religion and morality nessacary for happiness? Can morality be maintained without religion? Can a politician be trusted to keep his word without religious conviction? Can a person be considered patriotic who subverts religion?
Lets debate that! We allready know what George Washington thinks
CLOSED.
We discussed by PM what the topic for debate was. I reopened your thread based on that specific question. You can't just change it midstream.
This thread will remain permanently closed. You may start a new one WITH A CLEAR QUESTION TO DEBATE.
We discussed by PM what the topic for debate was. I reopened your thread based on that specific question. You can't just change it midstream.
This thread will remain permanently closed. You may start a new one WITH A CLEAR QUESTION TO DEBATE.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.