Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[Foxfyre]

All individuals have the right to have their voices heard, I doubt anyone would disagree with that. What I have a problem with is when a church makes the claim that they speak for God. I think that blurs the line between moral guidance and coercion. How can any believer take a position in opposition to God?

Every church congregation established does so with the underlying intention of getting it right. So far none have succeeded because the Church is made up of imperfect human beings and therefore cannot be perfect.

But what is more arrogant? To believe that you are speaking the will of God, aka as a spokesperson for God, or to presume the other does not know what God's will is or that there is no God? I have done my share of worship leading and teaching over the years and my prayer is always that I never preach or teach error. Nevertheless at some point I no doubt have.

Certainly the Puritans practicing draconian rules and

no -



its found in the preamble of the american constitution, the jurisdiction for all its citizenry.

The preamble describes what the Constitution is intended to accomplish. It does not accomplish it.

 

[BreezeWood]

The preamble describes what the Constitution is intended to accomplish. It does not accomplish it.

your patriotism is unbecoming ...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America ...

above all else is the heavenly garden, purity of life that certainly has nothing to do with the desert religions.

 

[SweetSue92]

The Constitution prohibits the hierarchy of Churches/Religions from being involved in State/Federal government. Popes, bishops, priests, ministers are set apart from government. However, this separation does not apply to the laity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the vocation of the laity:

898 "By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will....

899 The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church….

People/citizens of faith are not only citizens of a nation, but are also citizens of the Kingdom of God. It is not only our right, but our duty to permeate the social, political, and economic realities within our governments.

This is so badly misunderstood that I once had a European tell me that elected Americans are bound by the Constitution NOT to vote or legislate according to their faith.

That's....not what "freedom of religion" means

 

[Meriweather]

This is so badly misunderstood that I once had a European tell me that elected Americans are bound by the Constitution NOT to vote or legislate according to their faith.

That's....not what "freedom of religion" means

I suppose some Europeans are not familiar with what our second President, John Adams, said about our Constitution: It was made “only for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Thomas Jefferson noted If the Union was to be successful it required religious freedom. Hopefully he wasn't also thinking, "Except at the ballot box!"

 

[ding]

The founding fathers - to a man - believed we have a duty to the Creator.

 

[Donald H]

And here we get to the crux of the matter--and this reaches beyond religion/faith. Instead of opposition to "God", we can substitute any number of words here. Opposition to the government, to the Democratic Party, to the Republican Party, to Science to name just a few.

The Crux of the matter is separation of church and state. 200 years ago there was no separation, but that became impossible with Darwin. Then modern science began to carry the ball and will continue far into the future to do so, as long as there is still religious superstition.

Modern science doesn't need to proclaim anything being counter to religions. It's simply implied. [//b]

Religions will quietly accept the losses.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
very few founding fathers ascribed the desert religions as their own and were adamant not to allow those religions to be involved with the new nations government and authority.

 

[surada]

your patriotism is unbecoming ...



above all else is the heavenly garden, purity of life that certainly has nothing to do with the desert religions.

I like the preamble.. it states highest intentions. You could say "noble".

 

[surada]

I suppose some Europeans are not familiar with what our second President, John Adams, said about our Constitution: It was made “only for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Thomas Jefferson noted If the Union was to be successful it required religious freedom. Hopefully he wasn't also thinking, "Except at the ballot box!"

Aim high and all that we aspire to......

 

[alang1216]

What do you mean, exactly, by, "Speaks for God"? For example, people of the Mormon Church claim they speak for God in announcing the Catholic Church is in apostasy. Those who say they "speak for God" when they say vote for a particular candidate. Neither "speaks for God".

True.

On the other hand, there are those who proclaim God's word--i.e., that sins are forgiven or that Jews were Chosen--i.e., set apart for a specific purpose. The Ten Commandments may be another example.

Danger! I suspect the 9/11 terrorists were told by an Iman their sacrifice was what God wanted.

And here we get to the crux of the matter--and this reaches beyond religion/faith. Instead of opposition to "God", we can substitute any number of words here. Opposition to the government, to the Democratic Party, to the Republican Party, to Science to name just a few.

I can vote against Trump and the consequences are nil. If I go against God the consequences are eternal.

Any/all of those positions should be based on fact and logic, not on feelings, or the say-so of anyone, no matter how highly placed. First, go to the source. Who actually said it and what was the motivation behind it. If one supports the statement, what is the logic, facts for supporting it? Did God actually say to vote for a certain person? If he did not, then who said God said this, and what was the motivation for that statement?

I can point to any number of reasons I may not be in favor of Kamala Harris for President, much of it based on what is seen in the media and the positions she takes on various issues. However, I would not say anything against her personally for the sole reason I know for a fact when she was Senator she was kind and professional towards my daughter. She is not just a name to me, and nor should any candidate be to any of us.

Fact and logic? Yes. Faith? Too dangerous.

 

[alang1216]

Every church congregation established does so with the underlying intention of getting it right. So far none have succeeded because the Church is made up of imperfect human beings and therefore cannot be perfect.

But what is more arrogant? To believe that you are speaking the will of God, aka as a spokesperson for God, or to presume the other does not know what God's will is or that there is no God? I have done my share of worship leading and teaching over the years and my prayer is always that I never preach or teach error. Nevertheless at some point I no doubt have.

If you believe that you are speaking the will of God, you should be aware that the majority of people on this planet would disagree. Maybe God allows many different voices and religion to ensure no one can reasonably claim to speak for God?

 

[Foxfyre]

If you believe that you are speaking the will of God, you should be aware that the majority of people on this planet would disagree. Maybe God allows many different voices and religion to ensure no one can reasonably claim to speak for God?

It isn't a matter of speaking for God. It is a matter of allowing God to use you to speak.

 

[alang1216]

It isn't a matter of speaking for God. It is a matter of allowing God to use you to speak.

OK. How do I know if God is using someone to speak?

 

[Foxfyre]

OK. How do I know if God is using someone to speak?

When you have a relationship with the living God sometimes you know. There are no words to explain how you know, but you just know. It's quite amazing actually. And other times you just pray for Him to correct you/not teach or preach error.

 

[surada]

When you have a relationship with the living God sometimes you know. There are no words to explain how you know, but you just know. It's quite amazing actually. And other times you just pray for Him to correct you/not teach or preach error.

Every crackpot, zealot and charlatan says God is speaking through him or her .

 

[alang1216]

When you have a relationship with the living God sometimes you know. There are no words to explain how you know, but you just know. It's quite amazing actually. And other times you just pray for Him to correct you/not teach or preach error.

Did God speak through Joseph Smith or Mohammad? They certainly convinced millions.

 

[BreezeWood]

When you have a relationship with the living God sometimes you know. There are no words to explain how you know, but you just know. It's quite amazing actually. And other times you just pray for Him to correct you/not teach or preach error.

really, that would not be when at the cookie jar would it - so what difference is there when its just what you want and ignore when truth and honesty beckons an outcome not to your liking. (miraculously f f could not hear - the heavenly screams - to save themself)