American flag in sanctuary?

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,819
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
if such a distinction between church and state requires no Ten Commandments in public school hallways, how is it that such a distinction doesn't require no American flag in the Church?

Because the flag of whatever state Christians happen to live in at the time does not violate God's direct order that the responsibility and authority to teach religion to children belongs to the PARENTS, not the dictator or emperor or czar or king or president who happens to head the State in that place and time. A Japanese flag in a Japanese church doesn't teach religion anymore than a Christian flag in a Japanese church doesn't teach politics of any party to the church. It simply and only means that a Japanese Christian is in two realms - church and state.



See your hypocrisy? You opt for religion being taught your children so that they receive a better education.


No. The reality that my son's CHURCH school (an agency of a church, not the State) has much better academics has nothing to do with it being religious. There are a LOT of private schools in California that are not church related, that do not teach religion but also have very good academics. I understand Japanese public schools also have excellent academics and also do not teach religion in their schools. You don't have to have some (undisclosed) form of Christianity (or some stripped, meaningless, irrelevant, contentless form) taught in a school for it to have good academics.


Lees said:
1718052467585.pngyour solution to the problem which you promote, is to turn to the Roman Church institutions


The "solution" to the BAD academics of California public schools is to not subject my son to them but rather enroll him in a private school with outstanding academics. I know some parents have moved from California to other states that have better schools - and I "get" that approach - but my work and extended family keeps me here. Not so difficult to understand.

Meanwhile, I hope our PUBLIC schools become MUCH better academically; LOTS of other countries do it (and often for far less money), we can do it too. And personally I hope that the government gets out of the education business entirely... I support the "school grant" proposal (it goes by a variety of names) where each parents gets a grant from the government for the education of their children, a grant they can use for ANY school (secular or religious) and even for homeschooling, the government running no schools at all. But the very powerful teachers unions are fighting this very hard and I don't think this will happen. So, work to improve the academics of our terrible public schools. Some other countries do it (and for far less money), lots of private schools do it (and for far less money), public STATE schools can too. But the "answer" is not to disobey God, go against God's clear order, and give over to these HORRIBLE schools the teaching of religion.


The point here is whereas God specifically gives the responsibility and authority to teach RELIGION to the parents of the child, you want that authority to go to the czar, dictator, king, emperor, president, governor of the state that the victim child happens to reside in at that time - he imposing his religion on our children. I don't agree with that. I think we should do as God commands.





 
Last edited:

Lees

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2022
Messages
2,129
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Because the flag of whatever state Christians happen to live in at the time does not violate God's direct order that the responsibility and authority to teach religion to children belongs to the PARENTS, not the dictator or emperor or czar or king or president who happens to head the State in that place and time. A Japanese flag in a Japanese church doesn't teach religion anymore than a Christian flag in a Japanese church doesn't teach politics of any party to the church. It simply and only means that a Japanese Christian is in two realms - church and state.






No. The reality that my son's CHURCH school (an agency of a church, not the State) has much better academics has nothing to do with it being religious. There are a LOT of private schools in California that are not church related, that do not teach religion but also have very good academics. I understand Japanese public schools also have excellent academics and also do not teach religion in their schools. You don't have to have some (undisclosed) form of Christianity (or some stripped, meaningless, irrelevant, contentless form) taught in a school for it to have good academics.





The "solution" to the BAD academics of California public schools is to not subject my son to them but rather enroll him in a private school with outstanding academics. I know some parents have moved from California to other states that have better schools - and I "get" that approach - but my work and extended family keeps me here. Not so difficult to understand.

Meanwhile, I hope our PUBLIC schools become MUCH better academically; LOTS of other countries do it (and often for far less money), we can do it too. And personally I hope that the government gets out of the education business entirely... I support the "school grant" proposal (it goes by a variety of names) where each parents gets a grant from the government for the education of their children, a grant they can use for ANY school (secular or religious) and even for homeschooling, the government running no schools at all. But the very powerful teachers unions are fighting this very hard and I don't think this will happen. So, work to improve the academics of our terrible public schools. Some other countries do it (and for far less money), lots of private schools do it (and for far less money), public STATE schools can too. But the "answer" is not to disobey God, go against God's clear order, and give over to these HORRIBLE schools the teaching of religion.


The point here is whereas God specifically gives the responsibility and authority to teach RELIGION to the parents of the child, you want that authority to go to the czar, dictator, king, emperor, president, governor of the state that the victim child happens to reside in at that time - he imposing his religion on our children. I don't agree with that. I think we should do as God commands.

Oh cherry picker, you didn't answer the question. If the distinction between church and state requires no Ten commandments in public school hallways, how is it that such a distinction doesn't require no American flag in the Church? No, you can't move the argument to Japan when we are discussing the issue under American law.

As I said, which you the cherry picker ignore, "Parents teaching their children about religion is not the basis for keeping religion out of public schools. That is what you say. That is not what the State says. The State says, 'separation of church and State." And that is what you promote with your 'keep religion out of public schools' doctrine.

Oh..really? Placing your kids in a Roman Catholic school has nothing to do with it being religious? Yes, there are a lot of private schools. Yet you chose the Roman Catholic school. You...a good Lutheran PARENT. Again, you can't move the argument to Japan when we are discussing the issue under American law.

As I said, you are in agreement with the public school system that Newsom and California present. Separation of church and state. But that system has gone to hell. Why? Because of separation of church and state. Your response....run like hell to a place where church and state are not separated. Run to a faith contrary to your own faith, you say. Run to the Roman faith. Leaving others to suffer under the affects of your doctrine of keeping religion out of public schools. What a coward and hypocrite.

No, again, with your point you lie. As I have said, the Church is to influence the State. The State is not to influence the Church.

Oh, you think we should do what God commands? Did God command you, a Lutheran, to subject your kids to Roman doctrine? Did God command you, a Lutheran, to encourage others to do the same? Did God command you, a Lutheran, to leave the teaching of religion to your kids up to the Roman Church, instead of you the PARENT? As that is what you have done.

Remember, Rome says, 'give us your children till she is 7, and we will have her for life'. And you not only give your own, but encourage others to do the same. Pathetic.

Lees
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,819
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If the distinction between church and state requires no Ten commandments in public school hallways, how is it that such a distinction doesn't require no American flag in the Church?

Already answered. Many times.



we are discussing the issue under American law.

It is no more true in the US than it is in Japan or any other country: Christians displaying BOTH the state and Christian flags does NOT mean that ergo one is subject to the other or one is irrelevant. Nor does it mean that ergo God is wrong when He gives the authority and responsibility to teach religion to parents and not to the state.




"Parents teaching their children about religion is not the basis for keeping religion out of public schools. That is what you say.

Yes, that's what I state. You disagree, you hold that what God commands is to be ignored and this authority and responsibility belongs to the czar, emperor, ruler, king, president, governor - whoever the head of state happens to be at that given place and time - he should have the authority and responsibility. That's our disagreement.



Placing your kids in a Roman Catholic school has nothing to do with it being religious?


Again, yet again, still one more time .... our decision to NOT place our son in a horrible, terrible public school with horrendous academics but rather in a private school with outstanding academics had nothing to do with that school being a church school. It to do with it having outstanding academics.

Again, yet again, still one more time .... our decision to NOT place our son in a horrible, terrible public school with horrendous academics but rather in a private school with outstanding academics had nothing to do with that school being a church school. It to do with it having outstanding academics.

Again, yet again, still one more time .... our decision to NOT place our son in a horrible, terrible public school with horrendous academics but rather in a private school with outstanding academics had nothing to do with that school being a church school. It to do with it having outstanding academics.

Again, yet again, still one more time .... our decision to NOT place our son in a horrible, terrible public school with horrendous academics but rather in a private school with outstanding academics had nothing to do with that school being a church school. It to do with it having outstanding academics.

Schools CAN be excellent and yet abide by God's statement that PARENTS have the authority and responsibility to teach religion to their own children. LOTS of schools - in California and around the world - are excellent without ripping the God-given authority of parents away from them.



that system has gone to hell. Why? Because of separation of church and state.


Prove your claim.

Then explain why Japan, South Korea, China have much better schools than we do in California and yet they don't teach religion in their schools.... explain to me why SO many excellent, outstanding private schools don't teach religion.

Prove - with hard evidence from schools today - that those that teach religion are superior academically to those that don't. Show the academic levels of those that DO teach religion and those that DON'T and show the big difference.... the prove that the REASON for this difference is singular: it teaching religion.

Your claim is entirely baseless and has ZERO substantiation. And even if you could prove your point, it still would not justify your denial of God's command, your rejection of what God clearly and often states: the authority and responsibility to teach religion belongs to the child's PARENTS, not the state.


.


 

Lees

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2022
Messages
2,129
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@Josiah concerning post #(23)

No, the flag issue is about 'separation of church and state'. Your response that it doesn't violate the parents responsibility to teach their children does not apply. Just as you believe religion should be kept out of schools, separation of church and state, so also should the American flag be kept out of churches. But instead, you are for the flag flying in the churches. You are against the Church influencing the State. Yet you are for the State influencing the Church.

Flying the State flag in the Church, in whatever country, is a violation of separation of Church and State. Keeping religion out of public schools is done on the basis of 'separation of Church and State', no matter what country you are in. But such can only be addressed under law in the U.S.

No, that is what I said. Your cherry picking phrases and removing the context is reprehensible. My full statement is "Parents teaching their children about religion is not the basis for keeping religion out of public schools. That is what you say. That is not what the State says. The State says 'separation of Church and State." My statement was originally from post # (20), but I had to repeat it as you ignored it. And now that you address it, you do so in your cherry pickin way so as to distort what is being said. The full quote of mine was given to show your error. The State doesn't refuse religion being taught in the public schools based on what you say, which is the parent is responsible to teach their children. The State refuses religion being taught based on 'separation of Church and State'.

Which begs the question again, which you refuse to answer. If 'separation of Church and State' is not the basis for the State keeping religion out of public schools, and removing religion out of public schools, what is?

Again, you continue with your lie. I have never said the State should have the authority to teach religion in public, schools as opposed to the parent or the Church. Nor have I ever disagreed with the Christian parent being responsible to teach his children the Bible. What I have said, and do say, is that in America, the public schools should represent Christianity as that is the faith this country was founded on. The Ten Commandments should be in the halls of the public schools. Prayer should be allowed in public schools, and only to the God of the Bible and in Jesus name.

Yet you chose a Roman Catholic school to train your kids. You, a Lutheran, chose a school of a different faith than yours, Roman Catholicism. You chose a school, based on the faith that says, 'give us your children till she is 7 and we will have her for life'. You think religion is not involved, but it is. Rome knows it is.

Prove my claim? You admit the public school system has gone to hell. And God has been taken out of the public schools. And your response is to go to a Christian based School where God is represented.

As far as the other countries, God was never included in those State run schools. In the U.S. our origin is the Christian God and He was always represented in our public schools. But we/you have taken Him out. God is not pleased. We removed our foundation and can't control the students. All done on the basis of 'separation of Church and State'.

Lees
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,615
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
No, the flag issue is about 'separation of church and state'.
Quite a few people don't understand what that phrase actually means.
Your response that it doesn't violate the parents responsibility to teach their children does not apply. Just as you believe religion should be kept out of schools, separation of church and state, so also should the American flag be kept out of churches.
You wrote: "If the distinction between church and state requires no Ten commandments in public school hallways, how is it that such a distinction doesn't require no American flag in the Church?"

So, your view apparently is that the State--a public governmental organization--and a local church--a private entity--must for some reason be treated as if there were no difference between them.

That idea would need to be explained better.
But instead, you are for the flag flying in the churches. You are against the Church influencing the State.
Why does the mere presence of a flag in the church building seem to you to amount to "influencing the State?"
Flying the State flag in the Church, in whatever country, is a violation of separation of Church and State.
No, it isn't.
 
Last edited:

Lees

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2022
Messages
2,129
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Quite a few people don't understand what that phrase actually means.

You wrote: "If the distinction between church and state requires no Ten commandments in public school hallways, how is it that such a distinction doesn't require no American flag in the Church?"

So, your view apparently is that the State--a public governmental organization--and a local church--a private entity--must for some reason be treated as if there were no difference between them.

That idea would need to be explained better.

Why does the mere presence of a flag in the church building seem to you to amount to "influencing the State?"

No, it isn't.

Quite a few people plead ignorance to further their cause.

Where did I write that?

My view is explained. No need for 'apparently'.

No, the idea is explained perfectly already.

That has already been explained. Go back and reread.

Yes it is.

Lees
 
Last edited:

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,970
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
How do you feel about an American flag in the sanctuary or up near the altar?
I've been in churches where the majority of the service was signing patriotic songs and you would think that being a Christian and an American are the same thing. I don't like that or pastors or teachers talking about how America is a "Christian nation" which it is not.
The flag being in the sanctuary doesn't really bother me otherwise
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,615
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I've been in churches where the majority of the service was signing patriotic songs
If you say so, but I can't imagine what kind of church that might be. 😮
 
Top Bottom