Destructive Interpretations of Separation of Church and State
I believe in separation of Church and State. I believe in stated separation, because it normatively is wrong for any person to be judged, not by their character, and willingness to respect rights of others, but by who they choose to pray to in their private chambers.
Jesus, founder of the Christian faith preached separation of Church and State, did not teach His disciples to amalgam Church and State. This is evident in His oft quoted, yet perhaps, not fully understood declaration in Matthew 22:21.
“Render therefore the things of Caeser to Caeser, and the things of God to God.”
The true meaning of separation of Church and State, but which now is twisted in any and all directions, is that no one’s estimate in society should derive from the entity to whom they choose to direct their prayers.
The notion of separation of Church and State now is becoming a noose around the life of the United States, as opposed to a liberating force. In this respect, some liberals interpret separation of Church and State as ‘the State not borrowing good principles from Christianity’.
In response to this, let us ask an important and pressing question, which is:
Where exactly did America’s notions of equality and morality emanate out of, the feudal Lordship arrangements of Western Europe, Christianity, or some other religion?
Well, if settlers in America were hounded out of Western Europe, this because of their faith, clearly, they did not get their sense of equality from their oppressors.
We know for a fact that the only system of spirituality (religion) within which leaders are not placed on a higher pedestal in relation to those whom they lead is Christianity.
In Christianity, an ordinary Church member can disagree with his or her pastor on interpretation of Scriptures. There is equality of intrinsic worth.
Any arguments that America is not founded on secular interpretations of Christian principles is nothing but hogwash; all of the evidence points to influence of Christianity.
Someone then will raise the issue of slavery, to which I respond, man always knows how to be blinded, such that he does what he knows to be wrong and evil.
In presence of the thinking that there was not any other way to run their plantations, except with forced labor from slaves, the White man blinded himself to the reality that Christian Scriptures forbid practice of slavery.
That being said, regardless, at the time that William Wilberforce was convincing Britain and Western Europe, using Christian Scriptures of evil of slavery (1833), and timing of outlawing of slavery in the United States of America in 1865, again with Christian Scriptures as basis for the argument that slavery was wrong, slavery remained validated in all of the rest of the world.
Oh, and by the way, the moment the slaves were set free, the White man put on his thinking cap, and within 15 years, the progenitor of the modern tractor was born. Now, imagine if they had thought of the problem that way right from the beginning.
But then I digress.
A country that is lacking in any ethos is a country that loses any sense of direction. The United States of America appears rudderless, hapless, and directionless, exactly because it refuses to adopt any specific ethos for running of the country.
So then, everyone piles into the country, hoping their ethos can become the ethos of the entire nation, hence the bedlam that is everyone grabbing, pushing, jostling seeking to become the philosophy or ethos of the country.
Things have gotten so bad, even candidates for President are characterizing themselves as representative of philosophies. So then, George Bush Jnr. yanks America evangelical; Barack Obama yanks America Intellectual, yet Agnostic, not believing in anything, setting the stage for Donald Trump to assert importance of belief in something, even if that something is no greater than self demagoguery.
Now, there is attempt at characterization of the next election as a vote on philosophies, as opposed to a vote on leadership that will get the job done. If that attempt is successful, we end up with yet another four years of active yanking.
When governance of a country becomes an exercise in philosophical yankings, it is normative that a country will end up going round in circles.
If not for the 9/11 attacks, America probably now is deciding between Islamic philosophy and Buddhist philosophy for running of the country, this because some people, liberals in particular find it shameful, or can’t stand the thought that America has Christian foundations.
This attitude perhaps cannot be dissociated from the falsehood that now is perpetuated on an unsuspecting American polity that Christians are not known for intelligence. Even Einstein, a professed agnostic, probably would laugh at ludicrousness of such an assertion. Isaac Newton, Marie Curie — the only winner of Nobel Prizes in two different sciences, Robert Boyle — Father of Chemistry, Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, all Christians. Someone then will mention String Theory. Well, when it becomes a testable theory, let’s discuss String Theory.
Why do Liberals consider it shameful that America is founded on Christian ethos and principles?
Is this merely because they hate Republicans, or are they misled by all of the political statements directed at making people feel Christianity is the religion of the unintelligent?
If the facts clearly show that many of the advances in knowledge have been produced by practicing Christians, we conclude that any and all attempts at association of Christianity with unintelligence is rooted in some nefarious agenda, is no more than ‘Fake News’.
I ask then, what exactly is shameful about Christian foundations? Has any other system of spirituality (religion) other than Christianity ever produced a civilization? The only civilization ever that coincided Church and State is the Christian Byzantine Empire, which by the way, was a secular Empire whose civil laws consisted of secular interpretations of Christian principles.
The problem with the United States is liberals want to erase all that America owes to it’s Christian traditions, this so it can appear that America merely is product of intellectualism of liberals who oppose conservatism of religion, who then produce a civilization. But even if that were to happen today, we know for a fact that it is not the way things started out. We cannot by changing the present, wish also to alter facts and truths of the past.
Wishful thinking about the past never is a good substitute for facts of history.
It is time that liberals stop wishing that America’s greatness can’t be traced to Christian traditions, and more importantly recognize that any attempt at abandonment of Christian traditions only opens, and perhaps already has opened the floodgates to competition between other philosophies which seek to be America’s nationalist philosophy.
Just in case you have yet to notice, consider that it is since 2001 that all sorts of philosophies have been competing for the heart of America.
But, if none of these other philosophies ever have produced a secular civilization, is this not trading a sure thing for a hypothetical gamble whose odds start off at zero?
In Financial Economics, it never is rational to forego a sure thing for a hypothetical whose anterior probability of success is zero.
The six core principles of morality that are subscribed to the world over, but yet to varying degrees of enforcement, are Christian principles. In this respect, note that Christianity already was more than 600 years old, prior to emergence of any other religion on the face of this earth. Note also that at the time Christianity would have been about 500 years old, the 10 Matters provided Israel, six of which relate to civil interactions within a society and are adopted by Christianity, would have been about 2,500 years old at the very least.
So then, there is not any credible evidence for a moral code that precedes the 10 Matters.
With respect to presence of the 6 Matters that relate to civil interactions in fabric of America’s sociopolity?
Thou shall honor your parents is foundation of Social Security.
Thou shall not steal, commit murder, or bear false witness are part of the fabric of America’s judicial system.
Thou shall not commit adultery remains on the books in context of divorce proceedings.
Thou shall not covet is foundation of prosecution of intent that does not materialize into the desired evil outcome, that is, is foundation of charges of attempted murder.
Would Liberals who eschew borrowing of sound secular principles from Christianity be willing to abandon Social Security, and Civil Laws that are founded on Christian principles?
Liberals may retort that, in terms of abortion laws, Christians are attempting to impose themselves on the rest of society.
But if Liberals turn abortion rights into a war, as opposed to a discussion, what exactly do they expect as response from Evangelicals? Is abortion a matter of ideology, or a matter of lives?
If abortion truly is about lives, then ideology is not what is important, rather what is of importance is the balance of law that protects lives, and attempts to mitigate the probability, in a world that already is significantly messed up, that we do not consign children to be raised by women who declare, regardless of evidence about future pains of an abortion decision, that they feel inadequate at loving a child.
It cannot be better to consign a fetus that is less than 6–8 weeks old to be raised by a woman who believes she is not in a position to love the child that the fetus will become, than it is to grant such a woman an abortion.
But are Liberals discussing or attacking?
It never is a good idea to throw out a good philosophy or ethos, this merely because current practitioners of the ethos do a poor job of translating the ethos into secular principles.
Just ask the French.
In 1779, rather than only throw out their aristocracy, for facilitation of the murderous rage that would lead to killing of over 40,000 persons, the French threw every restraint that could be associated with notions of God, that is, Jesus Christ, out with their aristocrats. Well, let us examine the outcomes of that decision.
Within about two years, Robespierre the man charged with running France subsequent to the revolution would end up being executed by the revolutionaries.
It is well documented in history that the ruling class that emerged out of the revolution was an even smaller niche of the well to do in society, than was the case prior to the revolution.
Within 6 years, France was back under the rule of a dictator — Napoleon Bonarparte.
From 1785 throgh 1811, Napoleon would leave French lives strewn all over Western Europe and Russia, all in a quest for self glorification.
France would go on to suffer terribly in context of each of the First and Second World Wars.
France, which used to jostle with Prussia, and the United Kingdom for dominance of Western Europe would become a shell of itself.
On basis of the facts, the French Revolution was, perhaps the very worst thing to happen to France.
It never is wise for a good ethos to be thrown out merely because current implementation of the ethos is flawed.
