Seperation of Church and State

As a classical liberal minarachist, I don't think that government should be involved in much of anything, including the church.

 

"The Roger Williams controversy
Roger Williams, a Separating Puritan minister, arrived in Boston in 1631. He was almost immediately invited to become the pastor of the local congregation, but he refused the invitation on the grounds that the congregation had not separated from the Church of England. He then was invited to become pastor of the church at Salem, but was blocked by Boston political leaders, who objected to his separatism. He thus spent two years with his fellow Separatists in the Plymouth Colony, but ultimately came into conflict with them and returned to Salem, where he became pastor in May 1635, against the objection of the Boston authorities. Williams set forth a manifesto in which he declared that 1) the Church of England was apostate and fellowship with it was a grievous sin; 2) the Massachusetts Colony's charter falsely said that King Charles was a Christian; 3) the colony should not be allowed to impose oaths on its citizens, because that was forbidden by Matthew 5:33-37

Williams' actions so outraged the Puritan leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony that they expelled him from the colony. In 1636, the exiled Williams founded the colony of Providence Plantation. He was one of the first Puritans to advocate separation of church and state, and Providence Plantation was one of the first places in the Christian world to recognize freedom of religion."
From- History of the Puritans in North America

 

Yes. The phrase, “separation of church and state,” is not in the Constitution, but the principle is there in the First Amendment.

The principle is based in Christ’s teachings. Jesus explicitly and implicitly showed that His kingdom is not established through human governments or by the power of the sword. If Jesus wanted a “Christian Nation,” He would have established one Himself. He would have taken over Rome rather than be handed over to be crucified by its hands. Every time people seek to erase the boundaries between church and state, the church always gets the worst of it. The state goes on regardless, but the church has to rebuild its credibility.

Political power was one of Jesus’ temptations (Matthew 4:8-9 and Luke 4:5-7), but Jesus rejected it. Unfortunately,, many who claim the name of Jesus have given their allegiance to political movements in pursuit of power they tell themselves they will use to advance the Kingdom of God. But that’s self-deception. The way of the cross rejects the way of empire. They will always be oil and water to each other.

It is NOT “…the figment of some infidel’s imagination.” - opinion of W.A. Criswell (former pastor of First Baptist, Dallas)

It was NOT “enacted only [emphasis in original] to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination.” - opinion of David Barton (a dishonest history propagandist)

Thomas Jefferson’s “wall” of separation is NOT a “one-way wall.” One-way walls don’t exist, that would be a valve or a filter. The highly-education wordsmith, Jefferson, would not have used the word “wall” if he intended it to be porous in one direction only.

It does NOT banish religious opinion/teaching from the public square. It only prohibits persons representing the government or wielding government authority from promoting or prohibiting religious opinion/teaching.

It is a fundamental Baptist position developed long before the founding of the United States. If you do not affirm separation of church and state, you do not hold to historic Baptist principles.

They are correct. The only quibble I have is that they imply that Thomas Jefferson created the concept when he coined the phrase, “separation of church and state.” Jefferson is simply making an allusion to Baptist doctrine and Roger Williams’ illustration of “…the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world…” from The Bloody Tenant of Persecution (1644).

 

This appears to be the main area of contention, imo. When a person who has a position of authority in the government exercises his/her religious expression as a private individual, but in a public setting, does that violate the establishment clause?

Peace to you