Unfortunately, this is true. Luckily, oppression is seldom extreme in western democracies but some form of oppression happens too often.
The switch from minority to majority happens often gradually, until the point where the minority opinion gets a small majority in the parliament. After that point, laws change with a note that the opinions of the ex-majority should be respected. After some years, the note about respecting the opinions of the minority (ex-majority) is forgotten. Opinions deviating from the current law are considered inappropriate. You can have such opinions privately but speaking about them publicly irritates many and may even lead to accusations of breaking the law. An example of this kind of development in my country was a debated question whether marriage is between a man and a woman, or between two adults. The topic of the debate is not the point here, just a true-life example.
When the law and majority opinions in the surrounding society changes, people bring these attitudes with them to the church. If the decisions within the church are done by voting, after some time the same issues are debated within the church. As the old generations are replaced by new, it is likely that the same development happens within the church as in the society, just with some years delay.
The discussion was getting into why it’s important to have a separation of church and state. I mentioned why I think it’s important to have a separation of church and state.
First of all Jesus was for a separation of church and state. You never see Jesus trying to overthrow anyone and set himself up as king while on earth. That’s why the Jews rejected him as the messiah because they believe that’s what the messiah is supposed to do and they envisioned that upheaval as a warrior king destroying the roman empire setting them free. Additionally, we never see Jesus demand that the lost submit to their religious teachings. Jesus does not force anyone to obey him. It’s free will. It’s a choice. We see Jesus mentioned “‘Give to God what is Gods and give to the emperors what are theirs”. We even see where Paul writes about Christians submitting to the rulers in romans.
The other issue is that America is not a Christian nation. There is no such thing as a Christian nation. There is no such thing as Christian theocracy. America could have been conquered by Christians and Christians could have been the ones making laws but it’s not a Christian nation. Christianity is not what determines the laws. Humanism is. As time goes by , we see things like the Supreme Court shooting down theocratic laws.
There are more religions than just Christianity. There are dozens snd dozens of main forms of Christianity. When people , like some political parties in America, fight for ending this separation and they push things like , “ well we need to outlaw this because God said so and so “ and they try to control nothings like consenting adults getting married. When those things happen it’s because they are trying to unite church and state through laws. They themselves are not even actually trying to make the church and its selected leader ( like a pope ) an official office.
Which brings up this. If church and state was unified which church? Throughout the ages in places with no separation we seen things like popes and bishops holding power. We can see where a held religious position is also a secular position. We could see where bishops or priests could have someone arrested for their sins and placed in jail. It’s very similar to witch hunts , just without that United political and religious office being one.
So then I shared a example that many could get and it was how within the books, and the show of George RR Martin’s “‘Game of Thrones” we go through a plot where a specific religious cult is recognized as having secular authority. This cult could have people imprisoned. This cult held actual power over citizens even if they did not believe. That is some of the reasons why Americans want separation of church snd state.
Separation of church and state does not necessarily mean that citizens can’t vote in s way that aligns with their faith. Religion involves philosophy and that’s always played a role in his people’s world views shapes how they vote. But what it does mean is that the church does not have an official role of authority over citizens in America and no church is the only faith in america.
So what I said was about what I was seeing in the discussion and the example I used fit that as well.
So what I was doing was showing the difference between Christians voting in ways that align with their faith versus Christians setting up a religious authority with actual power over a nations citizens.
Why did I do that?
Your first statement made it seem as if you did not understand the difference. You said something along the lines of “ if there is a separation of church and state why so I see Christians need to fight for climate change” and that indicated you thought Christians voting in a Christian way or calling Christians to consider various aspects of the Bible when voting was the same as uniting church and state but it’s not.
This are very dark words. If we want such church be prophetic voice(s) on the said that we approve not God Himself approve, is church something more to us than politic action committee? Is it true that “We have a Jesus”, that He is our property and our servant or is Jesus are Lord and we must obey His commandments? But this extremely important topic is for another discussion.
I have nothing against concept of such temporary alliance, but in our world there is many problems with such alignment. Mainly, that they are temporary alliances by name, but not by substance.
You have part of the church that make “temporary” alliance with cause promoted by only one major party in your country and this alliance stay for 30 years and counting. It is quite reasonable to think that it is temporary by name only, but in reality it is union of party throne and altar in disguise.
Second situation, you can find it in real life quite easily, is when part of church make temporary alliance with party X, on some cause that is judge as morally sound. When these cause end it make temporary alliance on another cause with party X. When it ends another problem is found, again supported by party X. Some argue that part X is just very morally sound, but these is not very convincing.
This goes back to my point. Is working on climate true temporary alliance, but in fact it is violation of church and state separation? I would want to know more how these works on the ground.
From my point of view true problem is different. Namely, what is separation of church and state in substance and does working on climate change violate it or not?
Without answering that, arguing about why “separation of church and state” is important have no firm grounding.
Until you understand what separation of church and state em means you can’t get answer because it’s not compatible with a bad understanding of the issue.
No it’s not a violation for Christians or preachers to talk about environmental issues or any social issue. Christians are citizens and Christians can talk about and vote on abortion, marriage, how to handle native versus non native species, immigration and so on. A Christian can vote however they want even if it’s not in line with Christianity.
What the state can’t do is say hey this is a Christian nation and we will make sins laws and give Billy Graham a official position as states leading evangelist / religious law enforcer and pay him with taxes.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
48
The trouble is that privatized and commercialized religion, something the Olde Worlde has been spared.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
49
They pay no tax at all. That is a massive subsidy. So the tax paying consumer has to pay much more.
The government doesn’t pay subsidies to any church. Churches, like other non-profits, are tax-free, but they don’t receive payments from the government.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
51
Non-profits?! Riiight. So Olsteen and Hinn et al don’t live like potentates? Bogus educational institutions don’t wallow in tax free money?
Of course there are abuses, but the tax system is perhaps not as you think in some respects here, Klax. Hinn and Osteen pay taxes like everyone else on their income, and their personal property. The abuses come in when Hinn’s private jet is covered as an expense of the church rather than he himself paying for it. For what it is worth, private companies do the same thing, providing private jets to their executives. The main tax that churches do not pay, at least in our area, is property taxes. Property taxes fund local governments and schools most of the time, and are not federal. Most of the time that is small potatoes compared to most other taxes, and at least locally, if a property is not used for worship purposes, it is taxed just like private citizen’s property. Of course, churches get the same breaks as other non-profits, and it is not usual for them to set up separate non-profits for schools, homeless shelters, etc.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not defending the abuses, but do recognize that the power to tax is the power to regulate and the power to destroy, so am protective of the tax-exempt status.
5 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
54
Balance Phil, aye. Religion is big business for sure. One of the biggest. And the religion business, although it has a few perks, objectively isn’t much worse than others it turns out. Obviously Jesus would fly a Dassault Falcon 7X.
The best method is to look to your values and judge how political candidates can support those values, regardless of political party. If one of your values is to preserve the environment for future generations then you can see which candidates would support those ideals.
Sure.None i guess is the answer?When are people gonna realize that poltics the bigest bussiness in the entire world and nothing else?We are paying politicians to basically ignore us and live a lavish lifestyle .When theres money on the ground even the most “law-abiding ,honest” politician will sell his soul.If you or anyone in my opinion disagree on this then you are gullible
@Klax , I am curious…what is the relationship between church and state in Britain? A friend told me it was somewhat closer than the US? Thanks.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
58
They are inseparable. There are bishops in the House of Lords. We expect the church to step up on occasions of state, as the monarch is head of both, and they do, very well. Rarely they speak out appropriately on social matters. Not enough for my taste. But then they’d have to lead by example.
Interesting. I think when you go back to how things started in the states, the separation was primarily to keep the state out of the whatever faction of Christianity you preferred as there were multiple groups who immigrated who were concerned with freedom from the state for them, rather freedom of religion for all. Interesting that it has turned around somewhat with some whose main interest is keeping religion out of the state’s business.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
60
Religious lobbying doesn’t work here, thank God! Well, not outside Norn Iron (Northern Ireland).