Separation Of Church And State "Is A Lie"

[leemajors]

totally off topic, but i found this quote by graham greene interesting - made long ago, and greene was left leaning in his personal views... i wonder what he would make of today's literature:

Catholicism is usually explicitly present in Greene's novels. Greene in his literary criticism attacked most modern literature for having lost any religious sense or themes, which resulted, he argued, in dull characters who "wandered about like cardboard symbols through a world that is paper-thin." Only by recovering a religious element, the consciousness of the infinite meaning of human actions leading to an eternal destiny of salvation or damnation, could the novel recover its drama and power. Catholicism in his books is presented against a background of unvarying human evil, sin and doubt.

[101A]

FWD,

The best hypothesis I can come up with is that contemporary American Christian evangelical teaching is struggling to instill an internal sense of morality among its followers, depending rather on an external sense of morality.

In other words, believers are being raised to obey God primarily out of fear of Him or because "He says so!", rather than obeying Him because the law is written on their hearts. A severe analogy would be to a social class that avoids murder because its members fear the consequences of law enforcement, rather than holding an intrinsic value for human life.

(This can be observed in the rhetoric of the movement's leaders, who agonize that there can be no morality absent religious zeal.)

This produces a superficial brand of piety among the nominally faithful, who readily apostasize upon encountering external secular influences, because once the fear of God recedes in immanence and immediacy, the motivation to keep the faith recedes as well. Thus, in somewhat of a panic, these evangelicals seek to mitigate these external secular influences, either by cultural isolation, or by using the power of the state to reinforce their external sense of morality.

The latter means has been preferred over the past couple of decades.

Ummmm, no.

In fact, evangelical teaching instructs that it is not the acts of the person that saves or condemns them, it is through the grace of god that one is saved; which is exactly opposite of what you "assume". Evangelicals are taught to model their lives after Christ, and that although it is impossible to live without sin, we need to strive to do so.

[Extra Stout]

Ummmm, no.

In fact, evangelical teaching instructs that it is not the acts of the person that saves or condemns them, it is through the grace of god that one is saved; which is exactly opposite of what you "assume".

I don't think you grasped what I was talking about. I am certainly well familiar with the basic teaching of saving grace.

When I talk about the difference between an external and internal sense of morality, I am not talking about the difference between salvation by works and salvation by grace. I am talking about the daily motivation to choose to do right. A person with an external sense of morality would choose to do right because of something like fear of consequences, or a conviction that God is watching them. A person with an internal sense of morality would choose to do right because they love what is right and hate what is wrong.

The latter is what I would call having the law written upon one's heart or having the mind of Christ. And, my observation is that the development of that internal conscience is deficient in modern evangelical Christian discipleship. The church is very good at getting people to kneel at the altar and say a prayer and accept Jesus, but not so good at making people into fully devoted disciples of Christ who can persevere in the faith in the gauntlet of the real world around them where rationalization is so easy and tempting.

It's like Jesus' parable of the sower -- the church is throwing much seed on rocky or thorny ground, and little reaches the rich soil. And its attempts to snuff out the secular influences and inject superficial piety into the public polity is like a futile effort to tear out the thorny weeds, which will only grow
back when the sower is away.

Evangelicals are taught to model their lives after Christ, and that although it is impossible to live without sin, we need to strive to do so.

This would be specifically what I am addressing. Evangelicals are told to model their lives after Christ, but are not well-taught on how truly to put on the mind of Christ. The church relies too much upon strict legalistic enforcement of dogma and not enough upon the spiritual disciplines of prayer, meditation, fasting, and self-denial to allow the Holy Spirit to infuse itself into one's conscience and internalize what is right and what is wrong in God's eyes. So you end up with a bunch of people who can speak at length about what the Bible says, but not so much about the everyday life and choices of a disciple in the real world.

In this way, outside influences that challenge dogma become an unacceptable threat, because once there is a in that armor, there is nothing inside to buttress the faith. Such a faith is like the city built upon low ground, and protected by a levee. The levee holds for a while, until the great storm comes, and breaches it, and then the whole city is inundated and ruined. Whereas the faith that is truly grounded in the mind of Christ is like the city built upon high ground, where no flood can rise high enough to reach it.

So what we see in the church today are frantic efforts to repair the levees before the next storm comes. Why instead do they not choose to build upon high ground?

[spurster]

The church relies too much upon strict legalistic enforcement of dogma and not enough upon the spiritual disciplines of prayer, meditation, fasting, and self-denial

And I thought the spiritual disciplines were tax cuts, deficit spending, torture, and snooping.

[Extra Stout]

And I thought the spiritual disciplines were tax cuts, deficit spending, torture, and snooping.

Don't try to eat the pearls. They aren't digestible. Have some corn instead.

[Phenomanul]

I don't think you grasped what I was talking about. I am certainly well familiar with the basic teaching of saving grace.

When I talk about the difference between an external and internal sense of morality, I am not talking about the difference between salvation by works and salvation by grace. I am talking about the daily motivation to choose to do right. A person with an external sense of morality would choose to do right because of something like fear of consequences, or a conviction that God is watching them. A person with an internal sense of morality would choose to do right because they love what is right and hate what is wrong.

The latter is what I would call having the law written upon one's heart or having the mind of Christ. And, my observation is that the development of that internal conscience is deficient in modern evangelical Christian discipleship. The church is very good at getting people to kneel at the altar and say a prayer and accept Jesus, but not so good at making people into fully devoted disciples of Christ who can persevere in the faith in the gauntlet of the real world around them where rationalization is so easy and tempting.

It's like Jesus' parable of the sower -- the church is throwing much seed on rocky or thorny ground, and little reaches the rich soil. And its attempts to snuff out the secular influences and inject superficial piety into the public polity is like a futile effort to tear out the thorny weeds, which will only grow
back when the sower is away.


This would be specifically what I am addressing. Evangelicals are told to model their lives after Christ, but are not well-taught on how truly to put on the mind of Christ. The church relies too much upon strict legalistic enforcement of dogma and not enough upon the spiritual disciplines of prayer, meditation, fasting, and self-denial to allow the Holy Spirit to infuse itself into one's conscience and internalize what is right and what is wrong in God's eyes. So you end up with a bunch of people who can speak at length about what the Bible says, but not so much about the everyday life and choices of a disciple in the real world.

In this way, outside influences that challenge dogma become an unacceptable threat, because once there is a in that armor, there is nothing inside to buttress the faith. Such a faith is like the city built upon low ground, and protected by a levee. The levee holds for a while, until the great storm comes, and breaches it, and then the whole city is inundated and ruined. Whereas the faith that is truly grounded in the mind of Christ is like the city built upon high ground, where no flood can rise high enough to reach it.

So what we see in the church today are frantic efforts to repair the levees before the next storm comes. Why instead do they not choose to build upon high ground?

Good post. Sad state of affairs the 'church' is in.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Of course, Christianity is purely an import to this land as well -- a fact that is frequently overlooked. The generally pagan views of the Native American cultures are, historically, the religion that the Europeans found when they arrived and began the process of moving the indigenous people off native lands and converting them (by word and sword) to Christianity. That, as well as the fact that the Founding Fathers who are so frequently cited for a supposed support of governmental involvement in religious matters had, in many cases, left Europe to flee religious persecution. In reality, the construct of Christianity as the religious orthodoxy in the United States of America is almost purely a matter timing and power.

I don't see the argument -- and never will -- that those who aren't Christians should just shut the up and let Christians celebrate their religion publicly. I don't see it, frankly, because the flip side of that would never fly with those who are most ardent about that sort of a policy, assuming it would ever be permitted to apply consistently.

I've posed this hypothetical before, but I think it's appropriate here. Suppose that a handful of Christian families (Religious Right-ers) were entrenched in communities that over time developed a, say, Muslim majority. Better yet, a majority of the Islamo-fascists that I'm told are so prevalent in this world. For any number of reasons (convenience, economics, schools) those families don't want to move. But since the religious majority in a community is permitted to control the public displays of religious symbols and celebration, the children of these families are made to sit through Muslim prayers at school events; the families don't see nativity scenes in late December, they see tributes to Mohammed and other religious iconography -- let's say paintings of Osama bin Laden; and every official notice from the community government includes some form of tribute to Allah. Are they going to protest? I'd bet they would. If jochhejaam's view prevailed, though, they couldn't have a leg to stand on unless such a majoritarian-centered view of the Establishment Clause could somehow be limited to national majorities. That, of course, would be completely non-sensical.

More significant to me is this question: why do some Christians feel that their religion is undermined (or their faith unasserted) if the law prohibits the government from allowing public displays that are focused on only their relgious viewpoint? Is it not enough to worship God in your church and in your home and in groups (whether publicly or privately) with those who are like-minded? Why is it that the use of private means to assert religious viewpoints in a public manner are insufficient? Is it not enough for you to put the creche in your front yard each year at Christmas time? Does the vitality of your religious viewpoint depend on the government endorsing that choice and publicly displaying symbols of your religion to the exclusion of others? I've never heard anyone who supports a rollback of Establishment Clause principles adequately answer that question or any of its subparts.

I don't think you grasped what I was talking about. I am certainly well familiar with the basic teaching of saving grace.

When I talk about the difference between an external and internal sense of morality, I am not talking about the difference between salvation by works and salvation by grace. I am talking about the daily motivation to choose to do right. A person with an external sense of morality would choose to do right because of something like fear of consequences, or a conviction that God is watching them. A person with an internal sense of morality would choose to do right because they love what is right and hate what is wrong.

The latter is what I would call having the law written upon one's heart or having the mind of Christ. And, my observation is that the development of that internal conscience is deficient in modern evangelical Christian discipleship. The church is very good at getting people to kneel at the altar and say a prayer and accept Jesus, but not so good at making people into fully devoted disciples of Christ who can persevere in the faith in the gauntlet of the real world around them where rationalization is so easy and tempting.

It's like Jesus' parable of the sower -- the church is throwing much seed on rocky or thorny ground, and little reaches the rich soil. And its attempts to snuff out the secular influences and inject superficial piety into the public polity is like a futile effort to tear out the thorny weeds, which will only grow
back when the sower is away.


This would be specifically what I am addressing. Evangelicals are told to model their lives after Christ, but are not well-taught on how truly to put on the mind of Christ. The church relies too much upon strict legalistic enforcement of dogma and not enough upon the spiritual disciplines of prayer, meditation, fasting, and self-denial to allow the Holy Spirit to infuse itself into one's conscience and internalize what is right and what is wrong in God's eyes. So you end up with a bunch of people who can speak at length about what the Bible says, but not so much about the everyday life and choices of a disciple in the real world.

In this way, outside influences that challenge dogma become an unacceptable threat, because once there is a in that armor, there is nothing inside to buttress the faith. Such a faith is like the city built upon low ground, and protected by a levee. The levee holds for a while, until the great storm comes, and breaches it, and then the whole city is inundated and ruined. Whereas the faith that is truly grounded in the mind of Christ is like the city built upon high ground, where no flood can rise high enough to reach it.

So what we see in the church today are frantic efforts to repair the levees before the next storm comes. Why instead do they not choose to build upon high ground?

Great posts, both of you! I mean it!

[MannyIsGod]

Nice contribution to the thread.

I asked a question. If you choose to ignore it, theres not much I can do about it.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=FromWayDowntown]

I don't see the argument -- and never will -- that those who aren't Christians should just shut the up and let Christians celebrate their religion publicly. I don't see it, frankly, because the flip side of that would never fly with those who are most ardent about that sort of a policy, assuming it would ever be permitted to apply consistently.

I'll assume that you're generalizing since I didn't use a "shut the up and let the Christians celebrate their religion publicly" arguement. But since you brought it up, what are you referring to when you say "let Christians celebrate publicly"?

Defusing an anticipated arguement: If I disagreed with my wife on an issue and told her "tough it out" or "just get over it and move on", chance are there wouldn't be a problem. If I told her to "shut the up", there undoubtedly would be a major problem.
Don't overstate someones position FWD. Don't misrepresent or distort what someone's said for the sole reason of protesting something that gets your hackles up and hopefully they'll afford you the same courtesy.
You could and should have aired your opinion without (mis)quoting me.
"Objection sustained"




[

More significant to me is this question: why do some Christians feel that their religion is undermined (or their faith unasserted) if the law prohibits the government from allowing public displays that are focused on only their relgious viewpoint? Is it not enough to worship God in your church and in your home and in groups (whether publicly or privately) with those who are like-minded? Why is it that the use of private means to assert religious viewpoints in a public manner are insufficient? Is it not enough for you to put the creche in your front yard each year at Christmas time? Does the vitality of your religious viewpoint depend on the government endorsing that choice and publicly displaying symbols of your religion to the exclusion of others?

Why is it that some people feel the need to suppress Christian symbolism and reference to God? Is anyone being forced to view and abide by the Ten Commandments? I'm a Christian and I'm not, so how are others?
Are they forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Does it undermine their faith or put a damper on their lack of faith by having "In God We Trust" on our currency? Do any of those things truly interfere with the religious viewpoint of non Christians? If you can't prove that someone's being harmed by these things then there is not a problem.
Even if 1 in 50,000 people are being adversely affected by them (they're not), the 49,999 that are neutral or supportive of them should not have to acquiesce to such a microscopic percentage of dissent.

[jochhejaam]

I asked a question. If you choose to ignore it, theres not much I can do about it.

Okay Manny. You found nothing amusing about it. Great and thanks for playing.

[ChumpDumper]

Why is it that some people feel the need to suppress Christian symbolism and reference to God? Is anyone being forced to view and abide by the Ten Commandments? I'm a Christian and I'm not, so how are others?

Why is it that some people feel the need to put the Ten Commandments in monument form around courthouses?

[jochhejaam]

Why is it that some people feel the need to put the Ten Commandments in monument form around courthouses?

Because they believe them to be a great piece of literature?
That could be one reason, eh?

[ChumpDumper]

Because they believe them to be a great piece of literature?
That could be one reason, eh?

Disingenuous.

[jochhejaam]

Why is it that some people feel the need to put the Ten Commandments in monument form around courthouses?

Would you consider that act as Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion?

[jochhejaam]

Disingenuous.

How cliche. Anything original?

[ChumpDumper]

How cliche. Anything original?

Feh, your disingenuousness is cliche.

[ChumpDumper]

Would you consider that act as Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion?

I consider it a stupid idea.

[jochhejaam]

I consider it a stupid idea.

Disingenuous but eloquent.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't even know what that word means, do you?

[jochhejaam]

You don't even know what that word means, do you?

[ChumpDumper]

I think whatever the courts decided, pulling these kinds of stunts may lead to some little things the religious right may want, but they'll end up getting a whole lot they won't want as well.

[jochhejaam]

I think whatever the courts decided, pulling these kinds of stunts may lead to some little things the religious right may want, but they'll end up getting a whole lot they won't want as well.

You think a monument to the Commandments is a stunt? Get serious CD, you know better than that. The stunt is in trying the oppress the Commandments.

Do you find the Commandments repulsive?

[ChumpDumper]

You think a monument to the Commandments is a stunt?

In those locations? Absolutley.

Do you find the Commandments repulsive?

I find the use of them as a political football completely repulsive.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'll assume that you're generalizing since I didn't use a "shut the up and let the Christians celebrate their religion publicly" arguement. But since you brought it up, what are you referring to when you say "let Christians celebrate publicly"?

I am generalizing, and you assume that I was quoting you for the points I made in paragraphs after my first. The ONLY reason I quoted your post was for your silly point suggesting that Christianity is somehow a native religion and that all other religious viewpoints are imported. That's both historically wrong and horrendously xenophobic.

But, frankly, as to juxtaposition of the remainder of my post with yours, I'm not sure that there's a meaningful distinction between the sentiment I used and your suggestion that those who aren't Christians "Tough it out, get over it and move on." If you want to play semantics, I'm not going to engage in that sort of silliness. From what you've posted, I think it's perfectly reasonable for one to take that you believe that non-Christians shouldn't object to governmentally-endorsed, overtly-Christian public displays (which strikes me as tantamount to the celebration of a religion); that such people should "tough it out, get over it, and move on." I chose, for the purpose of the argument, to cast your argument (as I understand it from your post) in terms that are accurate, if not as rhetorically favorable to you. That's a part of discourse.

To answer your question, I mean precisely what I've written. As I noted above, public displays like a creche or other overtly Christian symbols is a celebration by Christians. In other words, a creche largely has no meaning beyond a celebration of a particular religious viewpoint; I doubt that anyone could look at a creche and derive from it any secular meaning -- I mean if it were just about the birth of a child, it would be irrelevant. Obviously, to those who are Christians, the creche is a symbol of the birth of Jesus Christ and the coming of the Savior. A creche cannot be anything other than a celebration of a Christian viewpoint and when displayed publicly, it is the public celebration of a Christian viewpoint. The same may be said for prayers or hymns, I think. The landscape is muddier when dealing with other matters: Ten Commandments displays and such. That's true, though, largely because those symbols can have meaning across a broad social spectrum.

Defusing an anticipated arguement: If I disagreed with my wife on an issue and told her "tough it out" or "just get over it and move on", chance are there wouldn't be a problem. If I told her to "shut the up", there undoubtedly would be a major problem.

Semantics.

Don't overstate someones position FWD. Don't misrepresent or distort what someone's said for the sole reason of protesting something that gets your hackles up and hopefully they'll afford you the same courtesy.

You could and should have aired your opinion without (mis)quoting me.

I quoted you on your erroneous historical statement. Maybe I should draw a line in my post or expressly indicate that I'm no longer quoting you. As to the "tough it out" sentiment, I didn't quote you -- I paraphrased. And, as I've said, I don't see that your distinction adds to or detracts from the argument. It's curious that you spend so much time here dealing with semantics and not addressing the substance of my point.

I think my sidebar objection trumps your "he didn't quote me accurately" objection.

Why is it that some people feel the need to suppress Christian symbolism and reference to God? Is anyone being forced to view and abide by the Ten Commandments? I'm a Christian and I'm not, so how are others? Are they forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? Does it undermine their faith or put a damper on their lack of faith by having "In God We Trust" on our currency? Do any of those things truly interfere with the religious viewpoint of non Christians? If you can't prove that someone's being harmed by these things then there is not a problem.
Even if 1 in 50,000 people are being adversely affected by them (they're not), the 49,999 that are neutral or supportive of them should not have to acquiesce to such a microscopic percentage of dissent.

It's an interesting dodge to try to state the converse of a point without addressing the merits of the point that was made.

Since you're in such a huff, though, I'll actually bother to answer your question.

Nobody with any intelligence at all is truly seeking to suppress Christian symbolism and reference to God -- the desire is to keep government out of supporting displays of Christian symbolism and making references to God. Government very clearly could not stop you from placing religious symbols on your front yard and keeping them there every day of the year (though it could impose limits involving distance, size, lighting, and other such things); nor could government stop you from waking each morning, opening your front door, and shouting as loud as you wish "Glory to God in the Highest" or whatever worshipful statement you wish to make.

My question is: why is your ability to do those things insufficient? why is there any need for government to endorse your religious viewpoint? why is there any need for government to parrot your display or to echo your religious statement?

Ultimately, that's the question that nobody has ever been able to answer for me. I don't need government to play any role in my religious choices, other than to allow me the opportunity to exercise my right to make religious choices and the freedom to proclaim those choices as I see fit -- not as government thinks my religion should be celebrated, and not because the majority happens to agree with me. My religion is something I celebrate in my home and in my church. My religion is something that I share with others, as a private citizen. My religious beliefs, however, are not dampened or stifled in any conceivable fashion if the government fails to recognize them.

It's not about whether government's action causes someone to doubt their faith. It's about the fact that the Cons ution is understood to preclude government from getting involved in religion, however insignificantly.

It's about the fact that in every respect, the Cons ution serves to protect the rights of the 1 in 50,000 -- those who aren't in the religious or social majority.

It's about the fact that nobody is asked to acquiesce to dissent because each person is still left to the individual choice to worship and celebrate his or her religion as he or she sees fit -- with as many or as few of the likeminded as he or she chooses.

Your question urges me to wonder why people should object to governmental involvement in religion. Mine asks you why people need or even want government to be involved in religion, however subtly.

I think I've provided you with my answer to your question. You've certainly not answered mine.

[FromWayDowntown]

Would you consider that act as Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion?

Some might consider it an act of government. Some have also concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the purview of the First Amendment to en ies beyond Congress, like state and local governments (as well as governmental en ies like public school districts) and precludes those en ies from acting in a fashion that endorses religion.

But I mean, that's just the Supreme Court and every other court in America. What on Earth do they know about the Cons ution?