Separation of Church from the State
Posted by:
No Human Authority
()
Date: February 28, 2007 08:34AM
Separation of Church from the State
The Lord Jesus Christ dwelt on earth in the midst of a despotic government that exercised dominion over all things pertaining to human life and destiny. There was no distinction between civil and religious affairs. None was made, because none was known.
Religion was simply a part of the state, and therefore subject to human law equally with war or commerce. The Savior, with unerring accuracy, exposed the falseness of this view.
Christ did not oppose the authority of the rulers over civil affairs. Concerning it he pronounced no opinion except to declare that they, at least, who recognized it in any matters pertaining to it should obey it in all.
In making this decision the Lord drew for all coming time the line of separation between the state and religion. “RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CESAR'S, AND UNTO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD'S.” In accordance with his own decision, Christ utterly disregarded Caesar’s claim to authority over things belonging to God.
Jesus knew that civil authority over religion had no foundation and was maintained only by force. Consequently, the Son of God did not go to the civil authority for permission to promulgate the Gospel. When arraigned-concerning things pertaining to his mission as a prophet from God, the Lord demonstrated his contempt for civil authority over religion by declining to even plead a defense.
Instead, the Savior gathered the people around him and taught them, as a right which he of himself possessed, and to which they had an equal right to respond. He selected messengers also to proclaim his religion, and commanded them to make it known to every creature in the entire world. By these acts he asserted that, with respect to religion, his disciples and mankind were of right independent of all civil government. Power to restrict and silence them he knew existed. It was everywhere around them. It always had its hand on them. It might arrest, imprison, scourge them, and put them to death. Of this he warned them, yet gave them no sword for their own defense. On the contrary, he strictly forbade their using the sword.
Their own discretion, argument, flight, suffering and his mediatory care were all the resources he allowed them against the wildest fury of absolute temporal power. But the right of the civil government to arrest or hinder them the Savior ignored as a nullity. They were to go forth everywhere, obedient to him as their sovereign Lord in religious things, and so far independent of men. And their right to do so was finally to prevail over all opposing power.
This separation of religion from civil government was contrary to the theory and practice of mankind at the time it was announced. The Savior was the only being on earth who then perfectly understood it. Against it human power, thought and prejudice were at once arrayed.
During the last two thousand years, religion has been persecuted by hostile governments and corrupted almost to destruction by the foolish impious assumed authority of patronizing rulers. Every step of the advancement of separation of church and state has been won by endurance or bought with blood.
Christ proclaimed the independence of religion from civil authority. However, it has never been fully realized. The United States should be the first nation to establish a perfect separation of church and state.
All vestiges of civil power over the things that are God’s should be abolished.
The Lord Jesus Christ dwelt on earth in the midst of a despotic government that exercised dominion over all things pertaining to human life and destiny. There was no distinction between civil and religious affairs. None was made, because none was known.
Religion was simply a part of the state, and therefore subject to human law equally with war or commerce. The Savior, with unerring accuracy, exposed the falseness of this view.
Christ did not oppose the authority of the rulers over civil affairs. Concerning it he pronounced no opinion except to declare that they, at least, who recognized it in any matters pertaining to it should obey it in all.
In making this decision the Lord drew for all coming time the line of separation between the state and religion. “RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CESAR'S, AND UNTO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD'S.” In accordance with his own decision, Christ utterly disregarded Caesar’s claim to authority over things belonging to God.
Jesus knew that civil authority over religion had no foundation and was maintained only by force. Consequently, the Son of God did not go to the civil authority for permission to promulgate the Gospel. When arraigned-concerning things pertaining to his mission as a prophet from God, the Lord demonstrated his contempt for civil authority over religion by declining to even plead a defense.
Instead, the Savior gathered the people around him and taught them, as a right which he of himself possessed, and to which they had an equal right to respond. He selected messengers also to proclaim his religion, and commanded them to make it known to every creature in the entire world. By these acts he asserted that, with respect to religion, his disciples and mankind were of right independent of all civil government. Power to restrict and silence them he knew existed. It was everywhere around them. It always had its hand on them. It might arrest, imprison, scourge them, and put them to death. Of this he warned them, yet gave them no sword for their own defense. On the contrary, he strictly forbade their using the sword.
Their own discretion, argument, flight, suffering and his mediatory care were all the resources he allowed them against the wildest fury of absolute temporal power. But the right of the civil government to arrest or hinder them the Savior ignored as a nullity. They were to go forth everywhere, obedient to him as their sovereign Lord in religious things, and so far independent of men. And their right to do so was finally to prevail over all opposing power.
This separation of religion from civil government was contrary to the theory and practice of mankind at the time it was announced. The Savior was the only being on earth who then perfectly understood it. Against it human power, thought and prejudice were at once arrayed.
During the last two thousand years, religion has been persecuted by hostile governments and corrupted almost to destruction by the foolish impious assumed authority of patronizing rulers. Every step of the advancement of separation of church and state has been won by endurance or bought with blood.
Christ proclaimed the independence of religion from civil authority. However, it has never been fully realized. The United States should be the first nation to establish a perfect separation of church and state.
All vestiges of civil power over the things that are God’s should be abolished.
Separation of Church from the State
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: March 01, 2007 12:48AM
So does this mean you are against crosses as public displays, faith based initiative funding by government and proselytizing in public schools?
Separation of Church from the State
Posted by:
No Human Authority
()
Date: March 01, 2007 01:19AM
Quote
rrmoderator
So does this mean you are against crosses as public displays, faith based initiative funding by government and proselytizing in public schools?
It depends on the facts of each case. The test is whether the act, policy or practice constitutes civil authority, of any type whatsoever, over "the things that are God's."
If the cross was erected by civil authority to influence the people's religious convictions, the act would be an disrespectful and impious trespass by Caesar, upon the Kingdom of Christ.
Separation of Church from the State
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: March 02, 2007 02:24AM
No Human Authority:
So you believe all Christmas displays on public property using public funds should be prohibited?
And you didn't answer the other questions.
1. Should religious groups be allowed to proselytize within public schools?
2. Should government funding be given to religious groups through what President Bush calls his "faith based initiative"?
So you believe all Christmas displays on public property using public funds should be prohibited?
And you didn't answer the other questions.
1. Should religious groups be allowed to proselytize within public schools?
2. Should government funding be given to religious groups through what President Bush calls his "faith based initiative"?
Separation of Church from the State
Posted by:
No Human Authority
()
Date: March 02, 2007 09:26AM
Quote
rrmoderator
No Human Authority:
So you believe all Christmas displays on public property using public funds should be prohibited?
Only those that are attempts by civil authority to influence our religious opinions.
Quote
Should religious groups be allowed to proselytize within public schools?
Depends on the facts of the specific case. The test is whether civil authority is being exercised over religion.
Quote
Should government funding be given to religious groups through what President Bush calls his "faith based initiative"?
Yes, if it constitutes civil authority over the duty we owe to our Creator.
Separation of Church from the State
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: March 04, 2007 04:11AM
You seem inconsistent.
You don't want government to regulate religious groups, but you seem to feel it is OK to allow religious groups benefits from government and also to receive special treatment in the public domain.
Please answer these questions specifically.
Do you support any sectarian displays on public property? What displays would you support if any?
Do you support any money being given by the government to religious groups? What funding would you support specifically?
And do you think that any religious group should be allowed to recruit minor children at public schools? Name the groups you think should have such access to kids at public schools.
It appears that you don't want religious groups, at least not the ones you support, to be bothered by government.
But you do want some, apparently those that you support, to receive taxpayer money and also to be allowed to proselytize children at publicly supported schools.
Please clarify your positions on these points and be specific.
Don't you think that Church and State seperation should be applied more consistently?
You don't want government to regulate religious groups, but you seem to feel it is OK to allow religious groups benefits from government and also to receive special treatment in the public domain.
Please answer these questions specifically.
Do you support any sectarian displays on public property? What displays would you support if any?
Do you support any money being given by the government to religious groups? What funding would you support specifically?
And do you think that any religious group should be allowed to recruit minor children at public schools? Name the groups you think should have such access to kids at public schools.
It appears that you don't want religious groups, at least not the ones you support, to be bothered by government.
But you do want some, apparently those that you support, to receive taxpayer money and also to be allowed to proselytize children at publicly supported schools.
Please clarify your positions on these points and be specific.
Don't you think that Church and State seperation should be applied more consistently?
Separation of Church from the State
Posted by:
No Human Authority
()
Date: March 05, 2007 12:05AM
Quote
rrmoderator
You seem inconsistent. You don't want government to regulate religious groups, but you seem to feel it is OK to allow religious groups benefits from government and also to receive special treatment in the public domain.
The general principle is "religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator and is exempt from the authority of civil government." "Authority" includes recommendatory authority as well as the authority to use force and violence.
Quote
Do you support any sectarian displays on public property?Quote
Yes. I have no problem with that do amount to civil authority over religion. I have a big problem with those that do.Quote
What displays would you support if any?
The statue of Roger Williams, in the Capitol, holding a book titled "Soul Liberty"Quote
Do you support any money being given by the government to religious groups?
Not if it violated the general principle that "religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator and is exempt from the authority of civil government."Quote
What funding would you support specifically?
Any type of funding that did not violate the general principle that "religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator and is exempt from the cognizance of civil government." The funding would have to be available to all religious groups including, but not limited to, groups comprised of infidels, pagans, Jews, Mahometans, Gentoos, Mussulmen and Turks.
Separation of Church from the State
Posted by:
rrmoderator
()
Date: March 05, 2007 08:44AM
Just trying to understand your position.
Do you believe that any religious group should be allowed to proselytize within public schools?
Do you believe that a cross displayed on public property is proper?
Do you believe that the "Ten Commandments" displayed at a public courthouse is proper?
Do you believe that any religious group should be allowed to proselytize within public schools?
Do you believe that a cross displayed on public property is proper?
Do you believe that the "Ten Commandments" displayed at a public courthouse is proper?
Separation of Church from the State
Posted by:
No Human Authority
()
Date: March 05, 2007 09:48AM
Quote
rrmoderator
Just trying to understand your position.
Do you believe that any religious group should be allowed to proselytize within public schools?
Only if all "religious groups", including pagan and infidel organizations, were allowed to proselytize within public schools.
Quote
Do you believe that a cross displayed on public property is proper?
Depends on the facts of the case. The general principle is that religion is not within the cognizance of civil government. Give me a specific fact scenario and I will evaluate it.
Quote
Do you believe that the "Ten Commandments" displayed at a public courthouse is proper?
Depends on the facts of the case. The general principle is that religion is not within the cognizance of civil government.
Roy Moore's Commandment display in Alabama was highly improper. I propose a federal law that imposes sever punishment on civil authorities who trespass upon the jurisdiction of God.
Separation of Church from the State
Posted by:
No Human Authority
()
Date: March 06, 2007 01:06AM
Quote
rrmoderator
Just trying to understand your position.
Do you believe that any religious group should be allowed to proselytize within public schools?
We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion is "the duty which we owe to our Creator", and is wholly exempt from the cognizance of Society at Large. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at Large, still less can it be subject to that of the Common Schools, because they are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former.
--See James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.