Life, The Universe, And Everything

[dano]

Buddy,

I'M not trying to clarify anything for you, I'm making fun of you.

 

I have been following this thread from its inception and it is obvious that there is no way I nor anyone else could clarity anything that you believe.

 

You call yourself a Christian but you don't sound like any Christian I have ever heard.

 

I think you have even said that you aren't sure about most of the dogma.

 

I am making fun of your claim that you are a Christian, and at the same time trying to make you see how Faith in general fucks up peoples thinking.

 

You can believe in as many fairy tales as you want, but you will pay for it, with good brain space!

 

Oh I forgot Jesus live in your heart!

 

Heartspace then.

[Grandpa Harley]

The framers of the constitution's first amendment recognized that and formalized it by stating that Congress would make no law regarding an establishment of religion or the practices of its' adherents

 

What the framers recognized here was that a bunch of religious bozos would run around trying to establish an intertwining of church and state if they didn't outline specifically that they may not indeed do so. Even back then there were those American Taliban-types who wished to force their beleifs on society through government.

 

 

Rather like the root cause of a lot of the problems in England, Wales and Scotland... what with Catholic Governments offing Protestants, Protestant Govts offing Catholics, the Puritan Commonwealth offing everyone...

 

We still burn Catholics in effigy on November 5th every year, despite the fact we try to pretend we're not doing. It's only in the latter part of the 20th century that the influence of the Anglican Church was fully exorcised from matters of state, thus Prince Charles was allowed a divorce, and to marry Camilla... TBH, if I'd been Charles, I'd have got who every the Archbishop was at the time, and taken him for a walk in Highgrove gardens, while explaing quite why Henry VIII had set up the Anglican Church, and the fact the Bish had the cushy number he did was to keep his mouth shut or raise a benedicting hand of blessing over any union the King saw fit...

 

However I digress. The non-separation of Church and State, historically, meant we could forge an Empire that lasted nearly 300 years and once spanned the planet from the international dateline to the international dateline, the long way around. How ever, it hobbled us in other ways.

 

The history of the UK is an object lesson of what happens when the church has undue influence on the workings of government.

[Grandpa Harley]

Interestingly, as I'm sure you're aware but neglected to mention, separation of church and state finds it's purpose in protecting the church from the state, not vice versa as you imply. You'll remember that folks came to the new world to get away from the state church's oversight and control. Freedom of worship was a principle reason for many moving to the colonies. The framers of the constitution's first amendment recognized that and formalized it by stating that Congress would make no law regarding an establishment of religion or the practices of its' adherents. Free speech was afterwards.

 

Buddy

 

Buddy, how do you think that people in Europe were subject to the church's oversight and control at all? Answer - because it was a State Church. I find your statement that "the separation of church and state to be in protecting the church from the state" to be quite incredible just on a common sense level. I have never heard this before in my life.

 

I see that you have abandoned all attempts at trying to prove your main point, which seems to be that there is a standard (for you, Christianity) applicable to all times and cultures and are now trying to re-write U.S. history to suit yourself. Have a go at it.

 

Sorry, I hadn't read enough of the thread to see you'd already addressed this...To quote the Daoist sage Homer Simpson, "D'OH!!!"

[BuddyFerris]

Thanks, Dano. I can always count on you to bring clarity.

Buddy

Buddy,

I'M not trying to clarify anything for you, I'm making fun of you.

...

Sarcasm, Dano. It wasn't actually a compliment, just a humorous rejoinder to keep the tone below the nuclear threshold. You've offered thoughtful commentary from time to time, and I've appreciated both the content and the effort. In the process of being challenged, I've benefited from being forced to reevaluate and understand the things I believe. It's an honest process, and not an easy one, as I'm sure you are aware personally. Having paid a price for the place we each stand, we're not inclined to be capricious in our next steps.

 

I may not be like any Christian you've ever met, I suppose. I am, however, much like most of the Christians I've met in my travels. Perhaps those you've met are of a more fundamentalist leaning. Dogma, doctrine, and belief; there's a difference. I'm pretty much just a Christian, as are most I've met.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

...

 

However I digress. The non-separation of Church and State, historically, meant we could forge an Empire that lasted nearly 300 years and once spanned the planet from the international dateline to the international dateline, the long way around. How ever, it hobbled us in other ways.

 

The history of the UK is an object lesson of what happens when the church has undue influence on the workings of government.

As is the history of each country where a national church appeared. Each case has examples of both benefit to the country and harm, not the least of which is irrational direction of policy matters. I'm more impressed with the performance of Franco as a benevolent dictator than I am with the performance of any state church dealing with the same issues.

Buddy

[Ouroboros]

Were you agreeing or disagreeing with the authors of our constitution?

 

You quoted them up through the statement of self-evident truth; here's the complete sentence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

You're absolutely right, they did refer to a "Creator". They were religious people who signed the papers. Here's a good link to all the different versions of belief they belonged to: link. So are you claiming that all of these are the same kind of Christianity? Are you a Quaker, Congregationalist or a Unitarian Buddy? Maybe you're a Catholic? The point is that these people with different views on similar religions (but not identical) united under one flag, a secular definition they all could agree upon. At that time they didn't have a concept of evolution, atheism, non-theism or agnosticism. Hence they had to find the lowest common denominator where they all could agree was the only thing they had in common, and could explain where they would base their ideology of the rights of man. Some of these people were Deists, which isn't very close to your belief at all. To me it doesn't sound like they picked one of the denominations and one of the interpretations of the BIble and built the country on it. They didn't base the ideas on the Bible (or a Deist belief or a Catholics or a ...) but on a common concept that all men have the right to believe whatever they want.

 

Compare these two concepts:

 

- Everyone have the freedom to believe whatever they want to believe

 

and

 

- "Have no other God's besides me"

 

Do you honestly think those two statements mean the same thing? It's the first amendment vs first commandment, and to me there are their detrimental opposites.

 

I'm sure you'll have difficulty agreeing with them, but your emphatic affirmation....?

 

OK, bad example. You're correct, personal liberties are not detailed in the Bible as we have laid them out in law. In fact, Biblical teaching doesn't require us to live in a democracy or to be treated nicely. It doesn't suggest we should overthrow rotten governments. It does support an individual's right to worship God honestly. Interestingly, as I'm sure you're aware but neglected to mention, separation of church and state finds it's purpose in protecting the church from the state, not vice versa as you imply. You'll remember that folks came to the new world to get away from the state church's oversight and control. Freedom of worship was a principle reason for many moving to the colonies. The framers of the constitution's first amendment recognized that and formalized it by stating that Congress would make no law regarding an establishment of religion or the practices of its' adherents. Free speech was afterwards.

So you do admit that the constitution is not founded on the Bible and Christianity then? It is founded on the idea of freedom of belief. They needed to find a place where they could exercise their different religions, it was not to establish a Southern Baptist Evangelical Theocracy.

 

I still can't see where Christianity as a specific idea got anything with how the constitution was established.

[BuddyFerris]

Interestingly, as I'm sure you're aware but neglected to mention, separation of church and state finds it's purpose in protecting the church from the state, not vice versa as you imply. You'll remember that folks came to the new world to get away from the state church's oversight and control. Freedom of worship was a principle reason for many moving to the colonies. The framers of the constitution's first amendment recognized that and formalized it by stating that Congress would make no law regarding an establishment of religion or the practices of its' adherents. Free speech was afterwards.

 

Buddy

 

Again, Buddy, your brain is chock full of Christian propaganda and fallacious thinking. The "framers" separated church and state because they didn't want a STATE RELIGION to take over everything like it had in England. The "divine right of kings" was anathema to them. It was worded that way so there would be freedom of religion and so that NO RELIGION would have dominance or power. The Republic's government was to be SECULAR.

WM,

You're at least partially correct. The intent to avoid a state religion was to preclude what had happened in their countries of origin; a state sponsored and approved (enforced) religion. Their experience in such an environment was oppressive.

 

Your implication that the framers were somehow anti-religious is a bit of a stretch, to say the least, though. For example in 1877, Jefferson and Madison proposed a bill in the Virginia legislature to disestablish the Anglican denomination as the Virginia state religion; that sounds promising. The bill is later referred to as the precursor to our constitution's first amendment. Their reasons, however, were far from anti-religious. Lest I be accused of disseminating propaganda or rewriting history, the words they penned together are added below. The whole is on individual religious liberty, not on protecting the state. More eloquently precise than most arguments offered on this forum, Jefferson's position here is quite clear. The state, formerly an oppressor of religious freedoms, is to be constrained to keeping its' mouth shut and hands off such matters. I'm sure you'll have fun with this.

 

Buddy

 

A BILL FOR ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

SECTION I. Well aware that

- the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds;

- that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint;

- that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone;

- that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time:

 

- That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal

conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

 

- that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

 

- that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

 

- that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally,

 

- that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

 

SECT. II. WE, the General Assembly of Virginia, do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

 

SECT. III. AND though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

[Deva]

I see that you have abandoned all attempts at trying to prove your main point, which seems to be that there is a standard (for you, Christianity) applicable to all times and cultures and are now trying to re-write U.S. history to suit yourself. Have a go at it.

 

Buddy, you say "Lest I be accused of disseminating propaganda or rewriting history..."

 

Too late, I already accused you.

 

 

At least you seem to have backed off from your ludicrous statement that the separation of church and state is for the protection of the church.

 

This discussion now seems to be about what the founding fathers of the U.S. did or did not believe. I completely fail to see how this relates to a universal standard valid for all people in all cultures and in all times and places which is what I thought you were maintaining when I joined in this discussion.

[BuddyFerris]

At least you seem to have backed off from your ludicrous statement that the separation of church and state is for the protection of the church.

 

This discussion now seems to be about what the founding fathers of the U.S. did or did not believe. I completely fail to see how this relates to a universal standard valid for all people in all cultures and in all times and places which is what I thought you were maintaining when I joined in this discussion.

Nope. There may well be a disconnect in our respective definitions of the church. Your use appears to be an institutional application. The word's origin, however, is that of a gathering, an assembly. Where two or three are gathered together, that's the church, the gathering, the assembly of believers. The church as an institution post-dates the Biblical teaching on church or assembly by centuries. As has been the subject of earlier discussions, the institutional application has little to do with Christianity in many milieus.

 

I take it you skimmed over Jefferson's words, "...to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty....". Words addressed specifically to restraining the state in dealings with the church.

 

Be patient on the issue of self-evident truth.

Buddy

[Taphophilia]

WM,

Were you agreeing or disagreeing with the authors of our constitution?

 

You quoted them up through the statement of self-evident truth; here's the complete sentence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

 

Point of order!

 

This is not from the Constitution. It's from the Declaration of Independance. Thomas Jefferson wrote these words, though the founding fathers signed it. Thomas Jefferson was not a part of the writing of the Constitution as he was a diplomat in France at the time the Constitution was being written. The DoI and the Constitution are different documents and the DoI has nothing to do with our Constitution. The words "Creator" or "God" are not in the Constitution.

[Deva]

Nope. There may well be a disconnect in our respective definitions of the church. Your use appears to be an institutional application. The word's origin, however, is that of a gathering, an assembly. Where two or three are gathered together, that's the church, the gathering, the assembly of believers. The church as an institution post-dates the Biblical teaching on church or assembly by centuries. As has been the subject of earlier discussions, the institutional application has little to do with Christianity in many milieus.

 

Pardon me, Buddy, I thought we were talking about the power and oppression of the state churches in Europe being the reason for people who came to the U.S. in setting up a separation of church and state.

 

Taph, you are again proving my point, which I restate -- Buddy is rewriting U.S. history to suit himself. I may just stick around to see how he again twists it and changes the subject.

[webmdave]

WM,

You're at least partially correct.

 

No, I am completely correct. Get it right.

 

Your implication that the framers were somehow anti-religious is a bit of a stretch...

 

I implied no such thing. Are you hallucinating again? Did an angel tell you that's what I meant? The USA is in NO WISE a Christian Nation. It never was.

 

You won't bother reading it, but I post this link for those interested: It's a Free Country, Not a Christian Nation By Stephen Jay Gould, PhD.

[Ouroboros]

Nope. There may well be a disconnect in our respective definitions of the church. Your use appears to be an institutional application. The word's origin, however, is that of a gathering, an assembly. Where two or three are gathered together, that's the church, the gathering, the assembly of believers. The church as an institution post-dates the Biblical teaching on church or assembly by centuries. As has been the subject of earlier discussions, the institutional application has little to do with Christianity in many milieus.

 

I take it you skimmed over Jefferson's words, "...to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty....". Words addressed specifically to restraining the state in dealings with the church.

 

Be patient on the issue of self-evident truth.

Buddy

Now I'm very confused. I thought the discussion was if USA was a Christian nation based on Christian ideals and that freedom of religion and freedom of speech were based on Christian ideology. But now it sounds to me that Buddy retracted from that position somehow.

 

How is the Jefferson's words at all based on Christian ideology, faith, belief, Bible or dogma? I think I lost the thread here. It's evident that the Constitution was made to protect the individual from the state, regardless of what faith or religion or lack thereof this individual had, and that is not proclaimed or declare or explained anywhere in the Christian faith or in the Bible. So I still fail to see how Christianity had anything to do with freedom of religion!?

[BuddyFerris]

Pardon me, Buddy, I thought we were talking about the power and oppression of the state churches in Europe being the reason for people who came to the U.S. in setting up a separation of church and state.

 

Taph, you are again proving my point, which I restate -- Buddy is rewriting U.S. history to suit himself. I may just stick around to see how he again twists it and changes the subject.

Deva,

I'm a little confused by your post. As to historical accuracy, feel free to be precise.

 

Your use of the 'state church' suggests it might be somehow separate from the state itself. It's not; as a preeminent or contributing power base, the state church in many cases is the origin of state policy. The religious intolerance was of both state and state church in origin. The exodus of Pilgrims and Puritans was after determining that the state church was unlikely to reform. Read a reputable history book, or look it up in the encyclopedia. Even wikipedia will lay it out pretty well. a b c d e

Separation of church and state, although invoked today for many trivial causes, was neither mentioned nor needed in our constitution. What is specifically detailed is that the state was constrained from having any influence or jurisdiction regarding the church. Jefferson later coined the phrase in a letter in the following context, "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, & 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 & State."

 

Feel free to read the original documents and comment.

Buddy

 

Point of order!

 

This is not from the Constitution. It's from the Declaration of Independance.

Yep. I stand corrected.

BF

[Deva]

Your use of the 'state church' suggests it might be somehow separate from the state itself. It's not; as a preeminent or contributing power base, the state church in many cases is the origin of state policy. The religious intolerance was of both state and state church in origin. The exodus of Pilgrims and Puritans was after determining that the state church was unlikely to reform. Read a reputable history book, or look it up in the encyclopedia. Even wikipedia will lay it out pretty well.

 

 

Now I confess to being confused also.

 

The problem with the state churches of Europe were that they were in fact allied with the power of the state and therefore could enforce their beliefs on others. The church was free to take lands, take money, and even torture people. This was oppressive to many of the people. This is why many of them left their countries. They were not free to practice their own beliefs and had to support financially and in other ways the beliefs of the established state church. In the U.S., the founders wanted to make sure no state church would be established in order that the people not be oppressed since then the church would not have the power to enforce its edicts. How exactly is this innacurate?

 

Yet you say the separation of church and state was for the protection and benefit of the church, not in order to curtail its power in being allied with the state. Or, have I misstated your postition?

 

Anyway, as I said before, how is this whole line of reasoning related to a universal standard valid for all cultures, times and places? I am totally in the dark on where you are going with this, Buddy.

[alanh]

You're correct, personal liberties are not detailed in the Bible as we have laid them out in law. In fact, Biblical teaching doesn't require us to live in a democracy or to be treated nicely. It doesn't suggest we should overthrow rotten governments.

Yet you consider the Bible to be the "external standard" of morality.

[dano]

Will you imagine how these great men of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries would have thought if they would have had the knowledge of what even a sixth grader knows today about the natural world?

 

Imagine what Ben Franklin would have done with a full understanding of Natural Selection!

 

Everything the bible attempted to explain with mythology and mysticism has been explained better with science, making the Bible irrelevant.

[Grandpa Harley]

Buddy is rewriting U.S. history to suit himself. I may just stick around to see how he again twists it and changes the subject.

 

In the best tradition of Christians since beofre the time of Constantine... Paul did it, Iranaeus did it, Justin Martyr, Clement, Eusebius...

 

I always think of the Donation of Constantine when I see Christians trying to retcon the founding of the Americas...

[BuddyFerris]

Now I confess to being confused also.

 

The problem with the state churches of Europe were that they were in fact allied with the power of the state and therefore could enforce their beliefs on others. The church was free to take lands, take money, and even torture people. This was oppressive to many of the people. This is why many of them left their countries. They were not free to practice their own beliefs and had to support financially and in other ways the beliefs of the established state church. In the U.S., the founders wanted to make sure no state church would be established in order that the people not be oppressed since then the church would not have the power to enforce its edicts. How exactly is this innacurate?

 

Yet you say the separation of church and state was for the protection and benefit of the church, not in order to curtail its power in being allied with the state. Or, have I misstated your postition?

 

Anyway, as I said before, how is this whole line of reasoning related to a universal standard valid for all cultures, times and places? I am totally in the dark on where you are going with this, Buddy.

Deva, sorry for the confusion. I obviously haven't made an adequate distinction among institutions and groups.

 

I think we can all agree that the history of the state church (officially sanctioned, exclusive franchise) of any nation has been a bad deal. A state church isn't any better than a rotten political lobbyist with too much power; in many places, its' been much, much worse. The rise of the state church rang the death knell for both intellectual diversity and independent personal belief. No freedom of religion; no free speech or press.

 

My contention from early on is that the state church (as differentiated from simply 'church') is a political instrument and not a Christian expression. A state church doesn't begin to fit the Biblical language where the word 'church' simply meant 'gathering' or 'assembly'. NT use is consistent; it refers to people, not organizations or institutions or buildings, but to groups and gatherings who meet together. Two or three are enough to be called the church (gathering, assembly) of believers for the time they're together. One group of folks that met together for awhile are referred to as 'the church that meets in your house.' The institutional church arrived on the scene a few centuries after Christianity was born; it arrived by political involvement with national government and had little in common with those who had gone before.

 

State churches and state religions, then, are massive organizations which are commonly enmeshed in state government and cannot be extricated in order to be considered considered separately. Such institutions may wear the name, but are far removed from the Biblical church (gathering, assembly) in structure, policy and practice.

 

As you say, the problem with the state churches of Europe included coercion, corruption, and politics. Not only are such things condemned by the Bible, but also by most reasonable people regardless of beliefs. The U.S. founders deliberately denied legitimacy to such institutions for the sake of individuals who had every right to believe and worship honestly. As you suggest, they would not be oppressed since then the 'state church' would not have the power to enforce its' edicts.

 

To clarify the point, the state church and the state are not separate entities; each is entwined in the other to the degree that people are inadequately represented. We have left the state church behind, thanks to the framers of our constitution, so that we may believe as we will, honestly. Each gathering of believers in America (assembly, church) owes its' existence to that formative decision. It was long overdue; many other nations followed the same path.

 

Hope that clears up the confusion a bit.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

Thus America is not a 'Christian Nation', but a nation of citizens who are allowed to believe, or not, as they see fit and are informed by their conscience. That is not a view informed by any book of the Bible I know, but it is a humanist view that a man may think what he will.

 

However, it still seems odd to me that, when it comes to electing anyone over there, they have to profess a belief in a 'higher' power than the will of the people. Over here, where we have a Queen who is also leader of the Church of England and Wales, and Bishops in the House of Lords, can happily elect someone while taking no interest in their imaginary friends... or even smiling indulgently at the professing atheists in the House of Commons. Effectively, we don't give a rat's ass what someone believes as long as they do (for the most part) the job we pay them to...

[Deva]

I think we can all agree that the history of the state church (officially sanctioned, exclusive franchise) of any nation has been a bad deal. A state church isn't any better than a rotten political lobbyist with too much power; in many places, its' been much, much worse. The rise of the state church rang the death knell for both intellectual diversity and independent personal belief. No freedom of religion; no free speech or press.

 

 

The institutional church arrived on the scene a few centuries after Christianity was born; it arrived by political involvement with national government and had little in common with those who had gone before.

 

State churches and state religions, then, are massive organizations which are commonly enmeshed in state government and cannot be extricated in order to be considered considered separately. Such institutions may wear the name, but are far removed from the Biblical church (gathering, assembly) in structure, policy and practice.

 

So you are saying that no state church is a "real" church since it is not a "Christian expression." I did misunderstand you on that point. When you said the word "church" you were not making it clear that you only meant a certain type of church. I do think a lot of folks would take exception with your statements, particularly Roman Catholics and Anglicans.

[Taphophilia]

As to historical accuracy, feel free to be precise.

 

The exodus of Pilgrims and Puritans was after determining that the state church was unlikely to reform. Read a reputable history book, or look it up in the encyclopedia.

 

Actually, Pilgrims wanted to reform the Church of England, Separationists wanted to flee from it. The term "Pilgrim" wasn't ascribed to the group who sailed on the Mayflower until the 1870's. Only 35 of the 102 passangers aboard the Mayflower were Separationists. The rest were just regular joes who were seeking their fortune in Virginia.

[BuddyFerris]

[so you are saying that no state church is a "real" church since it is not a "Christian expression." I did misunderstand you on that point. When you said the word "church" you were not making it clear that you only meant a certain type of church. I do think a lot of folks would take exception with your statements, particularly Roman Catholics and Anglicans.

Deva,

We're far afield; I hadn't intended to wander this far down the path, so perhaps we might exit by agreeing that an individual, an organization, or a government should be considered in light of its' behavior rather than by its' claims. The state church was a great impediment to justice and reason through most of the Middle Ages and continues as such in some places today. The modern such organizations will be remembered for their acts as well. Did they serve mankind according to Christian principle, or did they do harm. Were they champions of the weak or their oppressors.

 

While it would be convenient to pitch all state churches (and similar denominational organizations) over the conceptual wall and just deal with individuals, I don't, nor does mainline Christianity. They remain as organizations, many from noble beginnings, who occupy positions of power; their actions are as revealing as the actions of any government. Most such organizations are of less significance today than formerly as adherents become dissatisfied and depart, and as their political influence is lessened by reasonable law in secular states. Some national conventions have been remarkably pointless; others less dignified than little league. Today's emerging churches have little need to form other than loose associations between congregations, and do so frequently within and across denominational lines.

 

Religious extremism isn't on the decline, however, as radical Islam emerges. Fundamentalist Islamic states will illustrate the same foibles of the 'state church' again.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Actually, Pilgrims wanted to reform the Church of England, Separationists wanted to flee from it. The term "Pilgrim" wasn't ascribed to the group who sailed on the Mayflower until the 1870's. Only 35 of the 102 passangers aboard the Mayflower were Separationists. The rest were just regular joes who were seeking their fortune in Virginia.

Yep, you got it right.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Thus America is not a 'Christian Nation', but a nation of citizens who are allowed to believe, or not, as they see fit and are informed by their conscience. That is not a view informed by any book of the Bible I know, but it is a humanist view that a man may think what he will.

 

However, it still seems odd to me that, when it comes to electing anyone over there, they have to profess a belief in a 'higher' power than the will of the people. Over here, where we have a Queen who is also leader of the Church of England and Wales, and Bishops in the House of Lords, can happily elect someone while taking no interest in their imaginary friends... or even smiling indulgently at the professing atheists in the House of Commons. Effectively, we don't give a rat's ass what someone believes as long as they do (for the most part) the job we pay them to...

... to believe genuinely, to worship sincerely, and to do so unencumbered by dictates of government. There are examples of believers having to resist unjust government throughout the Bible. As to American's preference for politicians who 'profess belief', most of us would be ecstatic over a politician who would just do what he said without quibbling, equivocating, or raising taxes. Again.

 

Buddy