Separation of Church & State

[LadyEagle]

The only way I know how to do this is to plunge right on in.

On another thread with a discussion about liberals & conservatives, I posted this:

The First Amendment says nothing about a "separation of church and state." It is a "hands-off" amendment, instructing Congress not to establish a state religion and not to make laws interfering with religious expression.

The Founders did not set up a "wall of separation between church and state." It was erected by slick lawyers, arrogant jurists and unprincipled politicians to isolate religion from the mainstream of American life and to discredit people of faith. It is not the first time in history that unscrupulous men saw religion as a barrier to their personal ambitions and ideological agendas.

The Founders were not vague, ambivalent or silent on their conviction that freedom depends upon morality and morality upon religion. They understood that man's law is no match for evil.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindabowles/lb20010724.shtml

To which Baptist Believer replied:

It's nice that you have a website to quote, but that doesn't change that fact that the information on the website is wrong.

The First Amendment provides freedom for religion and freedom from religion. It was brought into being by secularists and Baptists who had long championed for separation of church and state. To reject separation of church and state is to reject your Baptist heritage.

Yes it (religious liberty) is a "liberal" idea, but it is also a biblical idea.

I say it's a matter of interpretation. Perusing the web, I found this, as well:

Erecting the Wall

It is important to note that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. This, despite major media and advocates regularly trumpeting the constitutional separation of church and state.

The phrase "separation of church and state" came long after the Constitution was adopted. In 1802, President Thomas Jefferson received a letter from a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut. They congratulated Jefferson on winning the presidency and urged him to promote religious freedom of outside-the-mainstream religious groups, which the Baptists were at the time. Jefferson, in an eloquent response, assured them that his government valued diverse religious expression and would never seek to interfere in their affairs or establish an official government religion with special privileges, one that would be superior to all other denominations. It was in the context of his brief, three paragraph letter, that Jefferson used the phrase: "wall of separation between church and state" as an allusion to a wall around a church to keep the government from interfering in the free exercise of religion.

As an interesting aside, Jefferson, himself, held some rather unorthodox views on the subject of religion. He cut and pasted together his own version of the Holy Bible eliminating miracles attributed to Jesus Christ, which he called "superstitions" and "fabrications." He also threw out the Old Testament and called the authors of the four Gospels "groveling authors" with "feeble minds." Although it was intended for his personal use, the Government Printing Office distributed so-called Jefferson Bibles for decades to new senators and representatives in Congress in the early 1900's.

Since our nation's earliest days, school children and teachers openly recited prayers in public schools; government workers and judges spoke openly about God in the course of their business and most newspapers contained Biblical references.

That all began to change in 1947, when the Supreme Court began systematically erecting a legal wall between church and state. In the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education, concerning subsidized bus transportation for students attending parochial schools, Justice Hugo Black, who was, ironically, a Baptist, wrote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

The Court did something in that case rarely, if ever, done before - it issued a decision ignoring the Court's own legal precedent. It is also interesting to note that this Court did not have a single judge with any prior judicial experience, yet they were able to all but remove God from education through a series of landmark legal decisions.


The Everson decision became a declaration of the Court's new policy with regard to Establishment Clause jurisprudence. It opened the floodgates to litigation that continues to clog courtroom dockets today.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/other_noteworthy_cases/estab_clause.htm

According to Baptist history, what is the view re: Separation of Church & State?

Am I rejecting my Baptist heritage, as Baptist Believer has stated, because I embrace the establishment clause in the Constitution but do not accept the non-existant "separation of church & state clause?"

My view is that the First Amendment was meant to keep government from establishing a religion, not to keep the 10 Commandments out of public buildings, kick prayer & Bible reading out of school, and all the other things the liberals and atheists are trying to twist this amendment around to mean (and have jurisprudence legislate from the bench on these issues as they have been doing for the last 40 or 50 years).

So, because this is my view, have I rejected my Baptist heritage, as has been alleged?

I am not wanting to debate this. Just wanting some actual Baptist history on this subject, so am bringing it to the "experts on Baptist history" in this forum.

 

[Johnv]

The Separation of Church and State is a core foundation of the Baptist faith. All Baptists are therefore bound to abide by it.

It was said that the "First Amendment says nothing about a "separation of church and state.... It is a "hands-off" amendment, instructing Congress not to establish a state religion and not to make laws interfering with religious expression.".

Read the amendment carefully regarding religion, as it's a two parter:

Congress shall make no law:
1 - Respecting an establishment of religion; and
2 - prohibiting the free excercise thereof.

In other words, Congress is not allowed to legisliate the endoresement of religion, and is not allowed to the limit practice of religion so long as the practice of religion does not constitute an official endorsement of the same.

Sounds like a wall of separation of church and state to me.

 

[LadyEagle]

Well, thanks, Johnv, but the purpose of this thread is to find out real Baptist history on this issue re: this so-called wall.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by SheEagle9/11:
Well, thanks, Johnv, but the purpose of this thread is to find out real Baptist history on this issue re: this so-called wall.

I'm going to hang back in this discussion since you obviously want other opinions on this matter, but I've put this on the table:

Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island and founding pastor of the first Baptist church in the Americas, wrote of a "hedge of separation" between church and state that was the model for the Rhode Island colony. Rhode Island was the first government in the history of the world with separation of church and state. Williams had a unique opportunity to bring into reality the Baptist ideal of church and government.

The First Amendment of the Constitution took this example of Rhode Island and applied it to the nation when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Jefferson's famous letter to Danbury Baptists alluded to Roger Williams' "hedge" when Jefferson explained the intent of the First Amendment as providing a "wall" of separation between church and state.


Some links for your edification:

http://www.ifas.org/fw/0003/wrong.html
http://my.execpc.com/~dcoy/PEDS/relfree.htm
http://travel.roughguides.com/planning/journalEntryFreeForm.asp?JournalID=2977&EntryID=3493

 

[LadyEagle]

Some links for your edification:

ROFL! Ah, so.

Glad to see posting links are not beneath you after all!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by SheEagle9/11:
Some links for your edification:

ROFL! Ah, so.

Glad to see posting links are not beneath you after all!

Nope.

I'd rather have you read a few books though... Do you want me to put together a list for you?

 

[rlvaughn]

Just a few scattered comments from me:

SheEagle, you are correct in the fact that "separation of church & state" is a Jeffersonian term, not a constitutional one. That being said, I remember that 30 or 40 years ago among Baptists here in east Texas, it was quite common to hear the term used to describe what they believed about religious freedom. Some of the same people today would draw back from using the term, because of the extremes to which some have gone against religion under the guise of that term. But we must realize that the terminology "wall of separation between church & state" means different things to different people.

But I understand that you are asking more for history. Roger Williams should definitely be considered when one looks for the historical meaning of religious freedom among Baptists. But also I would remind our readers that Williams was a seeker whose actual time as a Baptist was quite short. I would in no means downplay Williams' contributions to the foundations of religious freedom in our country, but I would recommend looking to such men as John Clarke, Isaac Backus, and John Leland as better representatives of the Baptist contribution to religious freedom. I say this on account of their lifetime commitment to Baptist principles (not just religious freedom). These men were solidly in the Baptist camp, spent their ministries as Baptists, and died as Baptists. Below are some quotes of Baptist preacher John Leland (1754-1841). Someone has started a website of the writings of Elder Leland, but it is quite incomplete. Maybe this will give a taste of Leland, but I recommend the reader find the book and put the quotes in context.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1668/john_leland.html

...religion is a matter between God and individuals: the religious opinions of men not being the objects of civil government, nor in any way under its control. It has often been observed by the friends of religion established by human laws, that no state can long continue without it; that religion will perish, and nothing but infidelity and atheism prevail. Are these things facts? Did not the Christian religion prevail during the first three centuries, in a more glorious manner than ever it has since, not only without the aid of law, but in opposition to all the laws of haughty monarchs? And did not religion receive a deadly wound by being fostered in the arms of civil power and regulated by law? These things are so...in almost all states, civil rulers, by the investigation of covetous priests, have undertaken to steady the ark of religion by human laws; but yet we have a few of them without leaving our own land [pp. 181-182].

... all the states now in union, saving two or three in New England, have no legal force used about religion,....And, moreover, the federal government is forbidden by the constitution, to make any laws, establishing any kind of religion. If religion cannot stand, therefore, without the aid of law, it is likely to fall soon, in our nation, except in Connecticut and Massachusetts...Such are the natural evils of the establishment of religion by human laws [p. 182].

... Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men, than it has with the principles of mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing...The duty of magistrates is, not to judge of the divinity or tendency of doctrines; but when those principles break out into overt acts of violence, then to use the civil sword and punish the vagrant for what he has done, and not for the religious phrenzy that he acted from [p. 184].

... Ministers should share the same protection of the law that other men do, and no more. To proscribe [prohibit] them from seats of legislation, etc., is cruel. To indulge them with an exemption from taxes and bearing arms is a tempting emolument [benefit]. The law should be silent about them; protect them as citizens, not as sacred officers, for the civil law knows no sacred religious officers...The principle of the law, is, that the gospel is not to be supported by law; that civil rulers have nothing to do with religion, in their civil capacities;...The evil seemed to arise from blending religious right and religious opinions together. Religious right should be protected to all men, religious opinion to none;...each individual having a right to differ from all others in opinion...[p. 188].

...The federal constitution certainly had the advantage of any of the state constitutions, in being made by the wisest men in the whole nation,...and that constitution forbids Congress ever to establish any kind of religion, or require any religious test to qualify any officer in any department of federal government. Let a man be Pagan, Turk, Jew or Christian, he is eligible to any post in that government [p. 191].

...The rights of conscience should always be considered inalienable--religious opinions as not the objects of civil government, nor any way under its jurisdiction. Laws should only respect civil society; then if men are disturbers they ought to be punished [p. 228].

... The interference of legislatures and magistrates, in the faith, worship, or support of religious worship, is the first step in the case, which leads in regular progression to inquisition; the principle is the same, the only difference is in the degree of usurpation [p. 357].

Government should be so fixed, that Pagans, Turks, Jews and Christians, should be equally protected in their rights [p. 358].

Government is the formation of an association of individuals, by mutual agreement, for mutual defence and advantage; to be governed by specific rules. And, when rightly formed, it embraces Pagans, Jews, Mahometans and Christians, within its fostering arms--prescribes no creed of faith for either of them--proscribes none of them for being heretics, promotes the man of talents and integrity, without inquiring after his religion--impartially protects all of them--punishes the man who works ill to his neighbor, let his faith and motives be what they may. Who, but tyrants, knaves and devils, can object to such government [p. 476]?

Remember that Christianity is of divine origin--the only religion that ever brought pardon to a guilty world; but, it has suffered more injury by its pretended friends, who have undertaken to regulate it by law, than it has from all its enemies [pp. 606-607].

 

[rsr]

Well said, rlvaughn.

If any of the Founders understood the concept, it would be Madison, who opposed paying for chaplains in Congress and opposed an act of incorporation for a church in Alexandria.

If some of the states have not embraced this just and this truly Christian principle in its proper latitude, all of them present examples by which the most enlightened states of the old world may be instructed; and there is one state at least, Virginia, where religious liberty is placed on its true foundation, and is defined in its full latitude. The general principle is contained in her declaration of rights, prefixed to her Constitution; but it is unfolded and defined, in its precise extent, in the act of the Legislature, usually named the Religious Bill, which passed into a law in the year 1786. Here the separation between the authority of human laws, and the natural rights of man excepted from the grant on which all political authority is founded, is traced as distinctly as words can admit, and the limits to this authority established with as much solemnity as the forms of legislation can express. The formal appeal to the sense of the community, and a deliberate sanction of a vast majority, comprizing every sect of Christians in the state. This act is a true standard of religious liberty: its principle the great barrier against usurpations on the rights of conscience. As long as it is respected and no longer, these will be safe. Every provision for them short of this principle, will be found to leave crevices at least through which bigotry may introduce persecution; a monster that feeding and thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws divine and human.

-- Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments

http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/estaorel.html

Many public officials are wary of religion in any form, mostly because they don't know, or care to know, the law. Bible reading and prayer have not been banned from the schools (except by pettifogging, unlearned bureaucrats).

Listen to George Bush's speech after the Columbia disaster. Didn't seem that he felt constrained to downplay his religious belief.

 

[rlvaughn]

Isaac Backus (1724-1806)

As God is the only worthy object of all religious worship, and nothing can be true religion but a voluntary obedience unto His revealed will...every person has an unalienable right to act in all religious affairs according to the full persuasion of his own mind, where others are not injured thereby...

It may now be asked, What is the liberty desired? The answer is: As the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, and religion is a concern between God and the soul, with which no human authority can intermeddle, consistently with the principles of Christianity, and according to the dictates of Protestantism, we claim and expect the liberty of worshipping God according to our consciences, not being obliged to support a ministry we cannot attend, whilst we demean ourselves as faithful subjects. These we have an undoubted right to, as men, as Christians, and by charter as inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay... - to the delegates of the general Congress meeting in Philadelphia in 1774-75

As religion must always be a matter between God and individuals, no man can be made a member of a truly religious society by force or without his own consent, neither can any corporation that is not a religious society have a just right to govern in religious affairs. (1781)

...It seems that the two main rights which all Americans are contending for at this day, are--Not to be taxed where they are not represented, and--To have their causes tried by unbiased judges. And the Baptist churches in this province as heartily unite with their countrymen in this cause, as any denomination in the land; and are as ready to exert all their abilities to defend it. Yet only because they have thought it to be their duty to claim an equal title to these rights with their neighbors, they have repeatedly been accused of evil attempts against the general welfare of the colony; therefore, we have thought it expedient to lay a brief statement of the case before this assembly....
....to impose religious taxes is as much out of their jurisdiction, [that of the Massachusetts legislature] as it can be for Britain to tax America; yet how much of this has been done in this province. Indeed, many try to elude the force of this reasoning by saying that the taxes which our rulers impose for the support of ministers, are of a civil nature. But it is certain that they call themselves ministers of Christ; and the taxes now referred to are to support them under that name; and they either are such or they deceive the people. If they are Christ's ministers, he has made laws enough to support them; if they are not, where are the rulers who will dare to compel people to maintain men who call themselves Christ's ministers when they are not? Those who ministered about holy things and at God's altar in the Jewish church, partook of and lived upon the things which were freely offered there; Even so hath the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel. And such communications are called sacrifices to God more than once in the New Testament....

Must we be blamed for not lying still, and thus let our countrymen trample upon our rights, and deny us that very liberty that they are ready to take up arms to defend for themselves? You profess to exempt us from taxes to your worship, and yet tax us every year. Great complaints have been made about a tax which the British Parliament laid upon paper; but you require a paper tax of us annually.

That which has made the greatest noise is a tax of three pence a pound upon tea; but your law of last June laid a tax of the same sum every year upon the Baptists in each parish, as they would expect to defend themselves against a greater one. And only because the Baptists at Middleboro' have refused to pay that little tax, we hear that the first parish in said town have this fall voted to lay a greater tax upon us. All America are alarmed at the tea tax; though, if they please, they can avoid it by not buying the tea; but we have no such liberty.... But these lines are to let you know, that we are determined not to pay either of them; not only upon your principle of not being taxed where we are not represented, but also because we dare not render that homage to any earthly power, which I and many of my brethren are fully convinced belongs only to God. Here, therefore, we claim charter rights, liberty of conscience. And if any still deny it to us, they must answer it to Him who has said, 'With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.'

If any ask what we would have, we answer: Only allow us freely to enjoy the religious liberty that they do in Boston, and we ask no more.

We remain hearty friends to our country, and ready to do all in our power for its general welfare. - A Plea Before the Massachusetts Legislature (1774)

Found at http://www.baptistpage.org/Distinctives/church_state/backus_01.htm and http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions21.html

 

[rlvaughn]

I'll try to get together some quotes from John Clarke (1609-1676). But since many who've heard of Roger Williams don't even know who Clarke is, here's a quote from this site:
http://www.mercer.edu/baptiststudies/classic/baptist_classics_Clarke.htm

Quick quiz! Who was the most important and influential Baptist in seventeenth century America?

Roger Williams!

"Wrong!" say Baptist historians A. H. Newman, Edwin Gaustad, W.R. Estep, and many others. They are unquestionably correct. The most important Baptist in seventeenth century America was a medical doctor by the name of Dr. John Clarke (1609-1676). Clarke did much more than work on sick bodies. He worked on a sick society! The sick society was Colonial New England.

Clarke founded the second Baptist church in America, the First Baptist Church in Newport (1644), Rhode Island. One of the most passionate advocates of liberty of conscience in America’s history, John Clarke stands out as one of the mountain peaks of Baptist history in America. No spiritual isolationist who kept his distance from messy politics, Clarke secured from King Charles II of England a new charter for Rhode Island Colony. The charter guaranteed full religious liberty for the little colony. Later elected to the General Assembly of Rhode Island, Clarke also served three terms as deputy governor of the colony.

We primarily remember Clarke, however, for Ill Newes From New England, a fiery Baptist tract exposing religious persecution in seventeenth-century New England...In 1651, John Clarke and two of his church members, John Crandall and Obadiah Holmes, courageously traveled from Newport, Rhode Island, to Lynn, Massachusetts, to conduct a worship service in the home of William Witter, a blind and aging Baptist. That trip became one of the most famous events in American Baptist history. It also became the occasion for John Clarke’s Ill Newes from New England.

Civil authorities brusquely interrupted the Baptist worship service in old man Witter’s house that day. Then they arrested Clarke, Crandall, and Holmes, eventually taking them to Boston to be tried for breaking the intolerant laws of Massachusetts. Friends paid fines for Clarke and Crandall, and they were released. But Obadiah Holmes refused to let his fine be paid. As a result he was lashed thirty times with a "three-coarded whip" on Market Street in downtown Boston. At the end of the humiliating whipping, Holmes looked to the civil magistrates and said, "You have struck me as with Roses"
- Walter B. Shurden

...That it is much on their hearts (if they may be permitted) to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained, and that among our English subjects, with a full liberty in religious concernments. - the words of Dr. Clarke, inscribed on the west facade of the Capitol in Providence, RI

http://www.redwoodlibrary.org/notables/clarke.htm

May all forever remember that it was the Baptists - not the Atheists, nor the Deists - who first secured and performed a lively experiment in religious liberty.

 

[LadyEagle]

Wow, a lot of great links to peruse! Don't have the time now, but will definitely check these out. Appreciate all the input so far.

 

[Walls]

Amen SheEagle, I am with you on this one.

 

[rlvaughn]

I haven't had much success locating statements by John Clarke on the internet (so I could simply cut and paste), but here's a quote from him, plus a few others.

No such believer, or Servant of Christ Jesus hath any liberty, much less Authority, from his Lord, to smite his fellow servant, nor yet with outward force, or arm of flesh, to constrain, or restrain his Conscience no nor yet his outward man for Conscience sake, or worship of his God...every man being such as shall appear before the judgement seat of Christ, and must give an account of himself to God, and therefore ought to be fully persuaded in his own mind, for what he undertakes. (John Clarke, Ill Newes from New-England, p. 10).

Our lord the king is but an earthly king, and he hath no authority as a king but in earthly causes, and if the king's people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all human laws made by the king, our lord and king can require no more: for man's religion to God is between God and themselves; the king shall not answer for it, neither may the king be judge between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure. (Thomas Helwys, A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity, p. 69).

Christian liberty lies in worshipping God according to the dictates of conscience, without the fear of men, which indulged to, brings a snare, and leads to idolatry, superstition, and will-worship: though Christians are obliged to regard the laws of men, respecting civil matters, yet not what regard religion and conscience, and are contrary thereunto; by such they are not bound, but should serve God rather than men; as the cases of the three companions of Daniel himself, and of the apostles, and of the martyrs and confessors in all ages, shew; who chose rather to suffer imprisonment, confiscation of goods, and death itself, than part with this branch of Christian liberty, to serve God, according to his word, and that light which they had in it. Nor does it become the rulers and governors to infringe this liberty of theirs. (John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, p. 527).

The magistrate is not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, to force or compel to this or that form of religion, or doctrine: but to handle only civil transgressions (Rom. xiii), injuries and wrongs of man against man, in murder, adultery, theft, etc., for Christ only is the king, and lawgiver of the church and conscience (James iv. 12). (1612 General Baptist Confession of Faith).

Thus we desire to give unto Christ that which is His, and unto all lawful Authority that which is their due, and to owe nothing to any but love, to live quietly and peaceably, as it becometh saints, endeavoring in all things to keep a good conscience, and to do unto every man (of what judgement soever) as we would they should do to us, that as our practice is, so it may prove us to a conscionable, quiet, and harmless people, (no ways dangerous or troublesome to human society) and to labor and work with our hands, that we may not be chargeable to any, but to give to him that needeth both friends and enemies, accounting it more excellent to give than to receive. Also we confess that we know but in part, and that we are ignorant of many things which we desire and seek to know: and if any do show us that friendly part to show us from the Word of God that which we see not, we shall have cause to be thankful to God and them. But if any man shall impose upon us anything that we see not to be commanded by our Lord Jesus Christ, we should in His strength, rather embrace all reproaches and tortures of men, to be stript of all outward comforts, and if it were possible, to die a thousand deaths, rather than do anything against the least tittle of the truth of God, or against the light of our own consciences. And if any shall call what we have said heresy, then do we with the Apostle acknowledge, that after the way they call heresy, worship we the God of our Fathers, disclaiming all heresy (rightly so called) because they are against Christ, and to be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in obedience to Christ, as knowing our labor shall not be in vain in the Lord. (1644 London Confession of Faith).

 

[LadyEagle]

Thanks, rlvaughn, for all your research on the web. These things take time, & it's appreciated.

But here's my rant - For years and years, it was fine to have prayer & Bible reading in school and to have the 10 Commandments posted in public buildings. (like when I was a kid) Now all of a sudden in the last several years, thanks to Madeline Murry O'Hare's big case to start the ball rolling, it became "unconstitutional." Well what about the 200 years or so previous to now? Why wasn't it unconstitutional then? Are we as a nation suddenly "more enlightened?"

If the Founding Founders had the idea of having a true wall of separation between church and state, then why is Congress opened with prayer? Why is there a Senate chaplain? Why is there a National Prayer Breakfast? Why is there a reference to God on the walls of the US Supreme Court? Why does our money say "In God We Trust?" Why was the phrase "One Nation Under God" added to our Pledge?

It's not a question of separation of Church & State for me. It is a question of reverse discrimination towards Christians and the leaning of society in general to secular humanism.

The ACLU is a bastion of evil. Well meaning folks on school boards and on city councils and other local government officials are now intimidated by the thoughts of an ACLU law suit. One law suit can devastate a city or county budget from legal fees when that money is supposed to provide necessary services for taxpayers. So they shy away from any forseeable trouble. One letter from the dreaded ACLU will cause the most well-meaning and well-intentioned public official to tuck tail and run. Town squares can no longer put up a nativity scene at Christmas. Children are told not to say Merry Christmas in school. There was a recent case in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The parents of Columbine victims. The list of ACLU intimidation goes on and on.

As godless as our nation has become, murdering thousands of unborn babies each day, vile filth spewed in music, videos, movies, and television, churches preaching to "itching ears," corruption in our government all the way up to include the Beltway, a society plunging into hedonism with reckless abandon, and shaking the fist at Almighty God in word and deed, I still Pray for God to Bless America.

Woe unto Americans the day God totally removes His Protective Hand and His Blessings from us because of our national sins!

Even so, Come, Lord Jesus!

 

[Kiffin]

SheEagle,

I sympathize with you. I think the Founding Fathers had no problems with anyone expressing their religious views or even praying at a Congressional meeting. After all we have freedom of religion and I think they would be disturbed at the removing of manger scenes from parks or schools forbidding Christian students from doing book reports of the life of Jesus or forbidding a student from giving a speech on Jesus at a graduation.

On the other hand I think the Founding Fathers would have problems with some in the religious right who at times obsessed with school authorized prayer or even teaching Bible courses under state authorization. I believe Madison opposed public funds going to teach the Bible in schools of his day (Does anyone know about this? ) I have met some who are for the religious rights of Christians but not Muslims, Buddhists etc... I agree with Johnv that Separation of Church and State is a core foundation of the Baptist faith ( As much as Believer's baptism is). There is a carefull balance.

 

[rsr]

From James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance to the Virginia legislature in opposing a bill to make assessments to further Christian education:

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/writings/memor.htm

 

[rlvaughn]

SheEagle, it's relatively easy for me to quote our forefathers on religious liberty, but sometimes hard to consistently apply the principles on a day by day basis. I often find myself confused in trying to juggle all the religious, political and social implications of religious liberty. Concerning some of the early practices related to Christianity and government, though, I think we have to be careful in getting all the facts. I would not be surprised if some of these practices were influenced as much by the Congregationalists, Puritans, Anglicans, etc., - who did not really believe in absolute religious liberty - as they were by the Baptists. David Barton has done considerable research into the religion of the "founding fathers." I have a great respect for David - he is founder of Wall Builder ministries, co-chair of our state Republican party, author and speaker on founding fathers and documents. If he is in my area, I try to go hear him speak. But I believe that much of his focus on the foundations of the United States as a Christian nation must magnify the religion of many that did not actually approve of religious liberty. I am also of the opinion that a number of radicals are using the cloak of "separation of church & state" to try to drive Christianity into the caves and closets, and out of the public arena in our nation. For example, the practice of a teacher allowing students to write on any religious topic except Jesus Christ or the Bible is certainly outside the intent of the First Amendment; even violates it. That being said, I offer a couple of quotes from Elder John Clarke:

...our royal pleasure and will is, that no person within the said Colony [Rhode Island, rlv], at any time hereafter, shall be in any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any difference in opinion in matters of religion...freely and fully have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences, in matters of religious concernments, throughout the tract of land hereafter mentioned, they behaving themselves peaceably and quietly, and not using this liberty to licentiousness and profaneness, nor to the civil injury or outward disturbance of others; any law, statute, or clause therein contained...in any wise, notwithstanding. - from Clarke's second address to Parliament, cited in John Clarke (1609-1676): Pioneer in American Medicine, Democratic Ideals, and Champion of Religious Liberty by Louis Asher (p. 79)

The outward forcing of men in the worship of God, is the ready way to make men dissemblers and hypocrites before God, and men which wise men abhor...for if they be spirituall, true, and willing worshippers, such as the Father seeks for, then what need is there of a constraint or restraint? such are a law of life to themselves; but if they be not, then what make they there before him, who calls for the heart, and wisheth men to look to their spirits, for he is a Spirit, and will be sanctified of all those who draw neer unto him?...If Christ Jesus the Lord hath expressly forbidden his mans conscience, or his outward man against his understanding and conscience, in things appertaining to God, although his understanding and conscience, be cleerly discerned to be erronious and evil, then can no servant of Christ Jesus have any liberty, much less authority, from him so to practice... - from Clarke's Ill Newes from New England, cited in John Clarke (1609-1676): Pioneer in American Medicine, Democratic Ideals, and Champion of Religious Liberty by Louis Asher (p. 110)

 

[rsr]

I entirely agree. There is room for Christianity in the public square and it should not be excluded.

 

[Jim1999]

Coming from England and living in Canada, I come to this discussion from a different perspective. In England we did not have separation of church and state. Indeed, the one on the throne was the Head of the Anglican Church, and the Prime Minister and the Royal virtually decide who will be the Archbishop of Canterbury...the head of the very chair where royalty is crowned.

In Canada, until the repatriation of the Canadian "consitution", we still had no separation of church and state. When serving in the military as a chaplain, you followed one of two orders: Anglican or Roman Catholic.

The public school system read from the King James Version of scripture and said the Lord's Prayer each day.

Generally, as Baptists we mostly opposed this in the schools. We said that it should have no part in the public arena, except by the local church. What we feared eventually happened. Teachers were invited to speak once a week to the school children. This included all stripes of religion.....Now where are we? What we thought was a good thing....reaching children with the word of God has turned into a farce of religion, including the Muslim religion and Jehovah's Witnesses.

As a Baptist, and not as a citizen, I will fight for the absolute separation of church and state, and leave the teaching and preaching of the Christian religion to the local church where it rightly belongs.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[rsr]

Thank you, Jim.