Let There Be No Separation of Church and State
Monday, October 19th, 2009
Growing up, my parents gave us materials written by David Barton, a dominionist who seeks to rewrite history, slanting it in a religious light. To this day, I find myself confused over the Founding Fathers and how much religion influenced them. Since my conservative days, I have learned that a prayer did not necessarily mean a fundamentalist Christian prayer, and religious quotes don’t make a person religious. Overall, however, I do get mixed up, and unless you do, too, you probably have no idea how often it comes up.
I believe in tolerance overall. But what dominionists seek to do is truly scary. What is also scary is how much political influence they have, primarily over the GOP. What do you think about tolerance and divisive political movements such as these? Where is the line?
Take that, David Barton! (I must say that I do find it ironic that he has this quote by Christopher Columbus on his website: “No one should be afraid to take on any enterprise in the name of our Savior if it is right and the purpose is purely for His holy service.” Yeah, you tell it to those Native Americans, Chris! Of course, that is one of the aspects of American history groups like this try to cover up: emphasize the missionary part, and de-emphasize the slaughtering part. Any mention of that is just those liberals trying to discredit our Christian heritage. I kid you not.)
Tags: Christianity, dominionism, dominionist, fundamentalism, GOP, right wing
Loading ...
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Look at this summary for a quick overview of the religion of the “Founding Fathers”. The references are linked to at the bottom, if you’re interested in more scholarly sources.
I also found this page useful back when a fundamentalist friend of mine raised this issue when we were in high school, but looking at it years later it seems more like an interesting student paper than a good scholarly work.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
My position is that separation of church and state is the healthiest arrangement for both religion and a secular society. When I write about this issue, I often try to incorporate the idea that all non-Christians – Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, whatever – have similar interests in this matter. It’s not a believer vs. nonbeliever issue (although Dominionists, naturally, would like to frame it that way). Church/state separation protects adherents of minority religions just as much as it protects me and other nonbelievers. We atheists/agnostics need to recognize that and forge alliances with these people on this issue.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I’m with you on the title of this article. Just look at the countries where there is no separation of church and state. Denmark, England, and others have among the highest percentages of atheists or non-religious persons in the world. And they have some of the lowest church attendance.
Yes. Bind church and state together. Obliterate the concept. And in the process sound the death nell for religion in this silly country.
July 17th, 2010 at 10:34 am
I’m a Baptist minister. (Please, no stones.) I am conservative in my views of the Bible and politically, as well. (Again, pax.) I am very much in favor of the separation between church and state. I do not expect everyone to believe as I do and they should have the freedom to believe as they desire. Government can not, and should not, try to govern the hearts of men, nor their beliefs. However, this does not mean that religious people should not be involved in government for we are a government of the people and by the people. Additionally, I have no doubt that many of our founding fathers had spiritual beliefs and were professing followers of Jesus Christ. To deny that their personal beliefs had no impact on the founding of our nation would seem irrational to me. (Our beliefs are seen in our behavior.) Yet, I’m not sure that a nation or government should ever be recognized as being Christian or Muslim or Jewish, etc. A nation might be filled with citizens who are Christian, Muslim, or Jewish but to declare that the nation as an entity is such is to confuse the definition of faith(s). It is my personal belief that our republic and its freedom of religion, and other freedoms, is a wonderful heritage that should be preserved. A nation where men are able to worship or not to worship in a fashion they choose without the intrusion of government.
Pax,
Elder
July 17th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Haha, no stones! I think overall, I can agree with you in that the nation is secular, but influenced by founder’s personal beliefs. Not every founder was a Christian, or even religious at all, though, so I think that would work both ways. As Steve wrote in another post, you can’t have faith-based government without persecution, at least in some form, which is probably why the founders chose to not include religion in the Constitution regardless of their own religious preferences.
And I am a social liberal, but I do have some conservative leanings; I just don’t really ever have the occasion to talk about them on here without flying off the topic. So, no worries. I have no problem with hearing others’ opinions, even if they are dissenting (as long as they stay calm and don’t attack). Pardon me if I come across a bit crankier than usual in my recent posts and comments as I am currently surrounded by loads of fundamentalist craziness.
How do you manage to be a Baptist minister and escape it? I do know many young ministers who are a bit more liberal, but the church usually stomps them to bits if they express those differing opinions on the secularism of a nation or Bill Gothard type beliefs. It seems most either conform, drop out of ministry, or become faculty at seminaries.
July 18th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
“How do you manage to be a Baptist minister and escape it? I do know many young ministers who are a bit more liberal, but the church usually stomps them to bits if they express those differing opinions on the secularism of a nation or Bill Gothard type beliefs. It seems most either conform, drop out of ministry, or become faculty at seminaries.”
I want to make sure and not misrepresent myself: As I mentioned above I am conservative in my views and beliefs regarding the Bible, etc. (I guess in some cases I might be called a fundie.) However, the general idea of fundamentalism, at least to me, is that of a strong legalistic attitude. I would describe a fundamentalist as one who is very particular on a set of rules and is more interested in others following the rules first and following God second. If I’m right in my observations of this attitude and mindset, then this is more akin to the Pharisees than it is to Christ. (I’ll try to not start preaching.) I believe God despises hypocrisy and legalism. (Just note all the encounters between Jesus and the religious leaders of his day and how he was constantly condemning them.) Personally, I strive to follow the teachings of Jesus. However, when I’m dealing with couples in my church that are living together, but not married (and I’ve had some) or a person constantly struggling with drug addiction or a person that is living in some way that I might not “agree” with I don’t have to judge them. Judging others is not my task or assignment. I’m simply free to love them for who they are, what they are, and where they are. I sit in their homes, they sit in mine, we go to lunch, Starbucks, etc. Let me close with this last thought. I think we are all prone to legalism. I think we are because we are all prone towards pride. It is easier for me to think better of myself and less of others. If I don’t keep that attitude in check I will become arrogant, proud, and legalistic towards those who do not agree with me. It’s been said that it is better to think of others as more important than one’s self. As such I’m free to dialogue with those who may not agree with me and even read their blogs. (But shhhh dont’ tell anyone:)
July 18th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Oh, yeah, I picked up that you were conservative, but at least from your comment, it seems like you have managed to escape the legalism infamous in the Baptist church. I think I said “liberal” where I should have said “not legalistic.” My mistake. Or maybe you’re just not Southern Baptist?
Seriously, that is actually a really rare attitude to have, at least around where I’m from, and I’ve been in ministry positions around the state. Like I said, it seems like most ministers I knew who went in with that kind of servant’s heart wound up getting maimed by the sharks. Not all, but most.