Should We End Separation of Church & State?

myth-one.com · Post by **myth-one.com** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:50 am

In thanking the evangelicals for their support, Donald Trump wrote: . . . the support that they've given me has been so amazing and has had such a big reason for me being here tonight.

They have much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits. An amendment pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago threatens religious institutions with the loss of their tax exempt status if they openly advocate their political views. Their voice has been taken away.

I am going to work very hard to repeal that language, and to protect free speech for all Americans!

If the state is not protected from the church, the church will eventually become the state.

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, and Iraq are a few examples.

The latest example is the Islamic State, or ISIS.

Is this the starting point for the Christian State In America -- or CSIA?

Of course, then CSIA would need to defeat ISIS so that Christianity could be spread to all nations -- as prophesied in the Bible.

Armageddon?

Does Trump have a good idea here?

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:03 pm

Trump fully supports religious fanaticism. His choice of vice president reveals this to the hilt. If Trump gets in with Pence as VP you can rest assured that they will indeed work very hard to create a United States that is run based on Christian Theocracy.

In fact, if Trump gets in this will show the entire world just how extremely vulnerable a free democratic system can be. We can only hope that Americans do the right thing and stick with the sane government that we already have in place as humanly flawed as it may be. At least it isn't insane and doesn't favor a turn to religious theocracy as the wave of the future.

We have no choice but to vote for Hillary this time around. Voting for Trump would be certain suicide for the USA. At least Hillary is for TRUE freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Trump is actually promising a theocracy that denies freedom of religion and freedom speech to anyone who objects to it.

Every election people claim that it's "the most important election of all", but this time around I think this might actually be true. Trump is promising extreme changes. He's basically proposing extremism with a religious agenda. No doubt about it.

I'm all for freedom of religion, but creating an America that is based on Christian Evangelical Theocracy is hardly "Freedom of Religion".

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:30 pm

I contest your premise, "If the state is not protected from the church, the church will eventually become the state." One could just as easily say that if the state is not protected from the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party will become the state.

Wait, you might have a point. None the less. The state is protected from private organizations, it is called the democratic process. The separation of church and state is not in the constitution. The establishment clause of the first amendment was not put there to protect the federal government, but to limit the federal government from establishing a state church. It did not stop the states from doing so. in fact some of the states did have state churches at the time. The free speech clause was considered sufficient to protect the individual from forced membership. The whole government church argument is nothing more than a cudgel used by progressives in attempts to silence opposing views. In fact , the progressives have their own moral code that they wish to impose upon these United States. Should there be a legally imposed separation between progressive ideology and the state? The best place for this to be dealt with is in the market place of ideas, not the legal code.

myth-one.com · Post by **myth-one.com** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:58 pm

bluethread wrote: I contest your premise, "If the state is not protected from the church, the church will eventually become the state." One could just as easily say that if the state is not protected from the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party will become the state. Wait, you might have a point. None the less. The state is protected from private organizations, it is called the democratic process. The separation of church and state is not in the constitution. The establishment clause of the first amendment was not put there to protect the federal government, but to limit the federal government from establishing a state church. It did not stop the states from doing so. in fact some of the states did have state churches at the time. The free speech clause was considered sufficient to protect the individual from forced membership. The whole government church argument is nothing more than a cudgel used by progressives in attempts to silence opposing views. In fact , the progressives have their own moral code that they wish to impose upon these United States. Should there be a legally imposed separation between progressive ideology and the state? The best place for this to be dealt with is in the market place of ideas, not the legal code.

It's all about the money!

What can I do so that you will endorse me for the presidency?

We are concerned about losing our "tax exempt status" if we do so.

No problem. I'll help you with that.

Ok, we will endorse you as a "baby Christian."

The church is at present supported financially by the state, and they do not want that to be jeopardized.

If Trump is elected president, that will be so.

Monta · Post by **Monta** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:50 am

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

"I'm all for freedom of religion, but creating an America that is based on Christian Evangelical Theocracy is hardly "Freedom of Religion".

Trump did not go that far. I think he was pleased with Evangelicals as they are big supporters of Zionist/Jewish Israel. Sorry, that is not Gospel Christianity which preaches love of the neighbor, compassion, fogiveness.

Evangelicals will be supportive of his political aims which will do nothing for Palestinians, which is hardly 'Christian'.

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:08 am

Monta wrote: Trump did not go that far.

From my perspective he actually did. What I heard in his final speech at the GOP was that he was going to insure the "Freedom of Speech" of religious institutions and work to repeal the laws that would deny them tax exemptions if they become involved in political activities. Although they actually do that now anyway.

But still what I heard in his speech was a full support for providing government funds to support religion becoming involved in politics. In fact, isn't that what this entire thread was original based upon?

Trump may himself not be a religious fanatic, but he certainly appears to be supporting religious fanaticism into the governmental process. I mean, look at the guy he chose for VP. Pence proudly states, "I'm a Christian, a Conservative, and a Republican IN THAT ORDER."

Clearly Pence is going to be putting his religion FIRST in all his political and legislative decisions. And that's definitely not good. That's not separation of church and state. That's basically bringing your religion with you to the legislative office and basing all your governmental decisions on religion.

That's precisely the OPPOSITE of separation of Church and State.

Monta · Post by **Monta** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:44 am

[Replying to Divine Insight]

"Clearly Pence is going to be putting his religion FIRST in all his political and legislative decisions. And that's definitely not good. That's not separation of church and state. That's basically bringing your religion with you to the legislative office and basing all your governmental decisions on religion. "

Pence religion is Zionism. Jews/Israel should rejoice.
Unfortunately this means more wars in ME because Israel has to defend itself
and Palestinians do not.
Hope that I am wrong, shall wait and see.

"For the pro-Israel community, Pence is viewed as a strong advocate for the Jewish state who can bolster Trumpâ€™s sometimes shaky relationship with Jewish leaders. Although he has taken on a strongly pro-Israel tone in recent months, Trump had previously raised concern in pro-Israel circles by saying he would take a â€œneutralâ€� approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Pence, an evangelical Christian, has noted that his strong support for Israel is rooted in his faith.

â€œLet me say emphatically, like the overwhelming majority of my constituents, my Christian faith compels me to cherish the state of Israel,â€� Pence said in an address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 2009, while he was serving in Congress."
http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/71988 ... uTcswg4.97

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:04 pm

Monta wrote: Pence, an evangelical Christian, has noted that his strong support for Israel is rooted in his faith.

From my perspective it really doesn't matter what Pence actually believes. What I object to is a public official taking such an important office in a Free Democracy where he intends to place his religion before the concerns of the Free Democracy.

A Free Democracy does not mean that anyone who is elected into office is free to push their personal religious views into law. Our Free Democracy in the USA particular is supposed to be a government that is "By the People, For the People". Not a government that favors the theological views of the individuals holding office.

So from my perspective Pence has absolutely NO CLUE how the democratic system in the USA is supposed to work, or what it's even about.

If he wants to place Christianity FIRST in everything he does, then he should consider becoming a preacher and not a politician running for office in a Free Democracy. His entire mentality toward our democracy is all wrong. Period.

His precise religious beliefs are basically irrelevant. He has no business placing his religious beliefs BEFORE the concerns of the people in a Free Democracy anyway.

He's basically promising to behave like as if he's working in a Christian Theocracy instead of a Free Democracy that is "By the People, For The People".

If he wants to run the Government "By his Religion, for his God" then he's applying for the wrong job.

That's my position.

Why should we vote for someone who is promising to take a Theocratic position when what we really want is someone who understands how a Free Democracy works and how it differs from a Theocracy?

Clearly Pence has no understanding of what a Free Democracy is all about in the first place. He seems to think that this must mean its free to be turned into a Theocracy. But that's totally the wrong view. We don't need that!

The USA is supposed to be "By the People, For the People". Not, "By Theocracy, for some imaginary God". <---- that's extremely dangerous and not what a Free Democracy is even remotely about.

So no one who is interested in preserving a Free Democracy should vote for any ticket where Mike Pence would be the VP. Regardless of what his religious views might actually be. We wouldn't want a VP who is doing things to appease a Flying Spaghetti Monster either. He's supposed to be working FOR THE PEOPLE, not for some personally-interpreted religious theocracy.

Also, something lethal could happen to Trump shortly after this ticket gets in. That would instantly propel Pence to the position of President of the USA. So we really need to recognize and acknowledge that the position of VP could potentially become the President at any moment. I don't want either Trump or Pence as president of our Free Democracy because I don't think that either of them have a clue what a Free Democracy actually stands for or how it is supposed to work.

So Pence's precise religious views are irrelevant. The simple fact that he wants to bring them into a Free Democracy as his FIRST PRIORITY already disqualifies him from holding that position as far as I'm concerned.

Monta · Post by **Monta** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 2:15 am

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

"So Pence's precise religious views are irrelevant. The simple fact that he wants to bring them into a Free Democracy as his FIRST PRIORITY already disqualifies him from holding that position as far as I'm concerned."

I fully agree.

If he had said he is Zionist only, would that make any difference?

You are more concerened about him being a Christian than a Zionist,

yet Zionism is both, politics and religion.

Which one should we be afraid of (in politics)? - I say both: Christianity and Zionism.

2Dbunk · Post by **2Dbunk** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 12:45 pm

[Replying to post 3 by bluethread]

. . . The separation of church and state is not in the constitution. The establishment clause of the first amendment was not put there to protect the federal government, but to limit the federal government from establishing a state church. . . .

No . . . not exactly word for word, though the courts through the years have consistently (more or less) ruled that the religion phrase of the First Amendment is exactly that: a wall separating religion from government. Thomas Jefferson memorialized that expression containing "wall" in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Church.

James Madison, arguably the author of the US Constitution, penned that phrase into the first part of the First Amendment for good reason. He had experienced that first hand when Virginia was studying taxing the people in support of a state church, proposed by none other than Patrick Henry. Madison opposed the Bill, won a continuance to the next legislative session and prepared/circulated a document outlining 15 reasons to vote it down: His Memorial & Remonstrance Carried the day and Henry's Bill was defeated. IMO that treatise is the model for the religion phrase of our Constitution.