Church and State

This page is taken from my book, “What Is Life All About?” Specifically this page is from chapter 40.6 called, “Existence: The First Understanding.”
churchandstate9

Costly Teaching for Children and for a Nation

Many want a world without God because they want to do what they will without being accountable. Unfortunately, they have taught their ungodly theories to others beginning with children, and of course, there is acceptance from young minds and from adults who many times do not want to be accountable or are overwhelmed and accepting of popular science.
The book (“What Is Life All About?“) is largely devoted to the wisdom of God, the purpose of God, and how the Bible is a book that is not from man. The Bible provides the answer to what life is all about and it turns out to be about you and your eternity and not about science. God created science as part of our existence. It is wrong to misuse science to teach that God is not the answer to creation. Theories are OK but pathetic when they are poor science, and teaching them as the best we know can be misleading. Teach what we know and can prove and in fact has been proven. It is interesting we do not want to teach children that “in the beginning God” because we are:
• To be a nation that separates church from state
• To be a nation that does not have God in our government or more correctly is trying to remove God from our government. We do this since we might offend someone by favoring God or a given religion.
At one point in time in our country, we had an intelligent leadership; certainly, we did as pointed out in chapter 42.2 (“What Is Life All About?“) under the title “America’s Moral Foundation.” The nation prospered and gradually fulfilled the dream of those who began this nation. Gradually we are sinking back into a greedy, self-serving society that accepts every sinful thing, and those things will destroy our society. The central thing in the success of America was that God was there in name and principle. It was a nation where there would be freedom of belief and the basic principles were Christian – bible principles. God exalts such nations and for the first time since the first century the table was set for the restoring of the church wherein people were saved. The basis would be the scriptures and not the hierarchical rule of Catholicism or the many Protestant groups. So along with this true freedom and an emphasis on bible principles, America quickly (over a short period of 200+ years) rose above other nations but note the verse below indicates that sin is a reproach to any people and a subsequent decline can be expected for a nation that approves sin. How can America have a preference for one religion? America cannot but Americans can and subsequently those principles in a democratic society can prevail. Why would America want to follow bible principles? Because life is not about this life but about your soul, your eternity and the very best principles for a nation are those that come from God – the God of the bible. You will die and having lived in a society where God is respected provides you the best chance to succeed in the next life (find, obey, live the truth).

Proverbs 14:34

34 Righteousness exalts a nation, But sin is a reproach to any people.

What We Do Not Want

Separating church from state is, of course, a good thing. Separating God from our thinking, from our principles of operating this country is not wise because it is all about God, and it is all about the God of the Bible. We accept all religions; we espouse freedom of religion, and that is good. If a religion would support anarchy or a hundred different problematic things, we would not want those principles to guide us even if we were to foolishly allow that group freedoms. In the scope of a nation that is intelligent and moral, there should never be support for harmful things. However, a godless society will be open to all kinds of harmful things.

Our history: not being ashamed to be one nation under God

The God of the Bible was behind the beginning of this United States. That is, it was on the minds of those who were our Forefathers, and they were not ashamed but bold in proclaiming such. Our heritage made us strong because there were truly godly principles in our beginnings. The need to separate church from state was the result of the Catholic tyranny of nations of the previous centuries.

The Reason for Separation of Church and State
The Evolution of Catholic States

We can have separation of church from state and allow religious freedom and still be “one nation under God.” We can be as were our Forefathers, one nation under the true God. We would in no way be violating the sense of church and state separation that concerned our nation’s Forefathers. Their concern was for a specific church exercising control over nations. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, directed nations. People can live in America and not believe in God, and they have the freedom to do that. It does not mean that the laws of the land must be godless in nature. It’s “funny” how we would destroy our nation to satisfy the whims of godless individuals. America is a nation where the majority makes the rules, but I doubt our “Forefathers” would have ever conceived of a godless nation, as that was not the principle used in creating the nation.
Now, I would strongly suggest that one thing bringing us to the point of a godless nation is the teaching of our children things that are theory, such as the big bang theory and the theory of organic evolution. It will be to our destruction as a nation. Again, teach what we know as true (not theories), and then allow the listeners to come to the correct conclusion.

Back to what matters

I have said this before and despite the hope to avoid the decline of America, it ultimately will not matter. Nevertheless, I wish America possessed the godly principled character of our Forefathers because that supports God’s purpose. What matters is your individual battle with sin. Your life will end, and whether America even exists will not be important. Your eternal existence will be important to you. That outcome will be determined based on how you lived in the body in relation to the rules contained in scripture. America will be either a help by promoting godly things or harmful to you by misleading you. Freedom of religion allows your search for truth, but the nation’s foundation on Christian principles has been its strength. It is as though the nation has to believe in all religions and thus at least to some extent support a myriad of principles. Freedom of religion should lead to the truth, but if the nation itself promotes principles more aligned with atheism as a pretext for being fair to all, it will indeed end up promoting religion, the religion of atheism. Are people blind to the fact that when we remove religion, remove God from our country’s core, we are promoting the religion of atheism? Religion is simply a belief system and there are thousands of beliefs and two of those belief systems are atheism and agnosticism.
The government of the United States in effect promotes ungodliness when in truth the strength of any nation lies in honoring God. It turns out that the Bible is from God, and living by those principles upholds a nation. So how does a nation allow religious freedom and in principle live by the precepts of one religion? If the Bible contains the singular truth of life, then it would be best thing to live by and to pattern a nation.
Bible principles were the guide for America’s beginning but now this nation is adventuring into a humanistic view that effectively rejects God. The nation should not take a stand against the founding principle of “one nation under God,” nor should it support the teaching of the religion of the theory of organic evolution and the theory of big bang.
As a nation, teach the truth that we know regarding science and leave the conclusion to the people. Some want to teach creationism side by side with theory of organic evolution and the theory of the big bang.
Again, teach what we know as factual. The idea of creationism only exists to oppose the ungodly teaching to our children of theories that are unproven and point away from God. We do not need creationism if we just had good science. Good science will point to God as creator and to God being the God of the Bible. A nation with uncertainty regarding creation can simply say we do not know, but here are some facts from science.
It is an awful thing to teach our children that there is no hope, their existence is just a result of some cosmic happening, and when they die, they are no longer in existence? They are just a happenstance in the long chain of evolution. Instead, they have a creator and a hope of a wonderful, ongoing, loving, eternal existence in a much better place. It is incredibly awful, terrible, and disgusting to teach the former because it is not the truth. The truth is the latter, and men choose an unsubstantiated and essentially meaningless definition of life. There is enough evidence just in observing the world that God declares, “The fool has said in his heart there is no God.”

One thing I have noted about bad science is that in the mystery and complexity of science, many people just accept what sounds best. They also believe the charismatic speaker who is indignant at the suggestion he/she might be wrong. Many scientists will defend their belief with new albeit unproven theories. They often really believe the premise they support but know they cannot prove it but “it must be right, it has to be right.” One of the weaknesses of many who believe the theory of organic evolution is their blind commitment to the doctrine. Like religion, they do not study for themselves but accept many things based on who said this or that or what institutions support the doctrine. If you question some aspect of the evidence that is crucial to the theory of organic evolution, you often get the answer “Evolution is already a proven fact.”

Comments RSS TrackBack 2 comments

Doug Indeap

in March 13th, 2011 @ 17:11

While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by Congress and/or the Executive doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of a ribbon-cutting ceremony for its new church.

The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the principle reflected by the Constitution (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) and, indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office.

James 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). 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.” Note, too, that as President he vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national church, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause.

While there may be reason to quibble about this or that bit of evidence about the religiosity of various founders, many of them no doubt were religious and Christian. Care should be taken, though, not to make too much of the founders’ individual religious beliefs. In assessing the nature of our government, the religiosity of the various founders, while informative, is largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that plainly establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted above. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.

By founding a secular government and assuring it would remain separate, in some measure at least, from religion, the founders basically established government neutrality in matters of religion, allowing Christianity (and other religions) to flourish or founder as they will. It is to be expected that the values and views of the people, shaped in part by their religion, will be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires or calls for this; it is simply a natural outgrowth of the people’s expression of political will. To the extent that the people’s values and views change over time, it is to be expected that those changes will come to be reflected in the laws adopted by their government. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent this; indeed, just the opposite–the Constitution establishes a government designed to be responsive to the political will of the people. It is conceivable, therefore, that if Christianity’s influence in our society wanes relative to other influences, that may lead to changes in our laws. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent that–and moreover the establishment clause would preclude Christians from using the government to somehow “lock in” (aka establish) Christianity in an effort to stave off such an eventuality.
The Constitution and particularly the First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

Wake Forest University recently 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://tiny.cc/6nnnx
alanpg

in April 28th, 2011 @ 08:20

Thank you for the excellent note ……… you are very well versed on this subject. As you have read I stand against any religion being a state religion and that is what our founders had in mind largely due to Catholicism and their history. In modern times we have various state religions such as Islam in some cases ……….. and they would love to have control of all governments as Catholicism had largely achieved.
Godly principles from the true creator would be wonderful and a blessing for any nation. Few understand this because they would say from which god. But if it were indeed from the creator it would have value. When we teach such things or promote such things as Big Bang, the theory of organic evolution or a no God system (atheism) we are promoting beliefs, essentially religions – government supported religion.
The new testament church of the bible is not a political entity and has absolutely no authority to be involved in such. Few understand this but it is explained in these pages or in more detail or in he book, “What Is Life All About.” Individual Christians totally independent of the church have the duty to be good citizens of moral character as understood in the bible and thus vote for candidates that uphold those principles. The church belonging to Christ never organizes in any political fashion or promotes such – It is not their mission. Many churches claiming Christ may do so in violation of godly direction but these are wrong in so-doing. Usually those churches are not indeed, in God’s eyes, Christian. This takes a bit more understanding but is available at the sources mentioned. There were bible principles on the minds of the founders and the nation flourished even though there was no imposition of those principles. Other religions want to impose their beliefs, their authority over citizens and that is not only wrong but destructive. True Christianity is based on free will decision making and when you see force, including indoctrination you will find serious error and subsequent danger. It turns out not all religions, including the true one does not indoctrinate but encourages one thing, namely understanding!
Sorry, I have drifted a little but there is such a gap in understanding religion versus truth or true religion that it seems necessary especially when I have limited information about you.
One thing I cannot understand is how this great nation can allow the beginnings of a religion like Islam with a mission such as they propagate to get a foothold. It is not radical Islam but just Islam that desires a true state religion ………….. True Christians are loyal to the powers of government but those of Islam are not – they want to rule but only a few at this time using violence others by peaceful means but their loyalty is not to the government. Many countries in addition to those with current religious rule (like Iran) are possible candidates for an Islam state. Differentiating religions is necessary but few will touch the subject.

again thanks for your thoughtful response,
Alan

Catholic's Question

Author Books

What Is Life All about?

Recent Posts

Pages

Meta

Church And State

Costly Teaching for Children and for a Nation

Proverbs 14:34

34 Righteousness exalts a nation, But sin is a reproach to any people.

What We Do Not Want

Our history: not being ashamed to be one nation under God

The Reason for Separation of Church and State
The Evolution of Catholic States

Back to what matters

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 2 comments

Doug Indeap

alanpg

Catholic's Question

Author Books

What Is Life All about?

Recent Posts

Pages

Meta

Church And State

Costly Teaching for Children and for a Nation

Proverbs 14:34

34 Righteousness exalts a nation, But sin is a reproach to any people.

What We Do Not Want

Our history: not being ashamed to be one nation under God

The Reason for Separation of Church and State The Evolution of Catholic States

Back to what matters

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 2 comments

Doug Indeap

alanpg

The Reason for Separation of Church and State
The Evolution of Catholic States