The separation of church and state

[Jazzy]

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Tuesday the notion of separation of church and state was a “misnomer” and that the nation required “everybody’s vibrant expression of faith.”

“When the founders set this system up, they wanted a vibrant expression of faith in the public square because they believed that a general moral consensus and virtue was necessary,” Johnson said. “The separation of church and state is a misnomer, people misunderstand it.”

“Of course, it comes from a phrase that was in a letter that Jefferson wrote, it’s not in the Constitution,” he continued. “And what he was explaining is they did not want the government to encroach upon the church — not that they didn’t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life. It’s exactly the opposite.”

Read more
IMO: He's the one who misunderstands. And it's ominous that those in positions of power have such wrong headed views. The Constitution also does not have anything regarding "vibrant expressions" of religion.

What's your opinion on what he said?

 

[Lees]

Read more
IMO: He's the one who misunderstands. And it's ominous that those in positions of power have such wrong headed views. The Constitution also does not have anything regarding "vibrant expressions" of religion.

What's your opinion on what he said?

I believe Mike Johnson is correct.

The idea of 'separation of Church and State' comes from the King of England being the head of the Church of England instead of the Pope. When the Reformation came, there was division between Roman Catholic and Protestant. This resulted in the King or Queen, at times being either Protestant or Roman Catholic. This resulted in persecution of the one Christian faith that the King or Queen opposed. All of which resulted in the Protestant Christians fleeing to America.

America was founded on the Christian faith. Founded on the Bible. Churches were established everywhere the pioneers went. When it came time to form a government, the Christian faith was certainly involved as can still be seen in the halls of government throughout the United States.

Lees

 

[Josiah]

Read more
IMO: He's the one who misunderstands. And it's ominous that those in positions of power have such wrong headed views. The Constitution also does not have anything regarding "vibrant expressions" of religion.

What's your opinion on what he said?

The idea of "Separation of Church and State" comes primarily, largely out of Lutheranism. But there have been many twists on it.

Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism/Episcopalianism (and John Calvin himself) all reject this idea and hold that church and state are essentially one (and must be). There is church and state (Bishops and Kings) but their realms and authorities are blended and essentially one thing. It must be noted that modern Calvinism/Reformed theology has deserted Calvin on this point and largely accepted the Lutheran position. This "One Kingdom" (same thing) view reigned unchallenged from the Fourth to Sixteenth Centuries until Luther - and still exists in some Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican countries, at least in theory.

The Anabaptist - a bit after Luther - rejected both the "united" view of Catholics/Orthodox/Anglicans AND Luther's "Two Kingdoms" idea. They essentially eliminated the State and civil authority, so there is ONLY the authority of the church. They argued (a bit with John Calvin) that ONLY the church has authority, it's not "shared" as Catholics taught and it's not authoritative but separate as Luther but essentially the "state" (if it exists at all) is just an agent of the church. For this reason, the Anabaptists refused to participate in government in any way or form - and some of this tradition still refuse to vote, etc.


This video is from a Calvinist/Reformed speaker but presents this Lutheran view. It's 6 minutes long:

It can be argued that the US is based in large part on Luther's view, not the Catholic - Anglican - Orthodox view OR the Anabaptist one. But the Anabaptist AND the Catholic/Anglican view get promoted in the US. There are Baptist/Evangelicals in the US, the "Religious Right" in the Republican Party for example that (understandably) promote an Anabaptist view over the traditional Calvinist/Lutheran one on which our nation was founded - insisting that the civil state is subject to the church. This "one is subject to the other - only ONE is real/authoritative" is perhaps is the view of Mike Johnson.



.

 

[Jason_76]

Many religious have a habit of being bossy, so why are we surprised when many resent them? Anyway, the Bible teaches separation from the world, but who lives like that?

 

[tango]

There's a big difference between saying the country requires vibrant expressions of faith and saying the Constitution calls for vibrant expressions of faith.

We can and should keep church and state separate. The state doesn't need to interfere in matters of faith, nor should it require or prohibit religious worship. I don't see how encouraging vibrant expressions of faith requires the state to be involved in any way at all.

I used to live near a Sikh gurdwara that regularly opened its doors to anyone who wanted a meal. They served food that was compliant with Sikh requirements, which I believe meant little more than it was always vegetarian. They accepted donations which were absolutely voluntary, and if you didn't or couldn't donate anything you were still welcome to eat. It was an expression of their faith.

I remember a time I was passing by a mosque that had a lot of Muslims outside, giving food to people passing by. I think they were also inviting people in to eat. Again, it was an expression of their faith. I took the chance to talk to them about suitable gifts for a Muslim neighbor - had the neighbor not been a Muslim I'd have given them a bottle of wine but obviously that wasn't going to work for them, and I wanted to make sure I didn't fall foul of any Islamic rules.

A church I attended before I moved opens its doors to people who need a warm place and who struggle with their heating bills. As they've done that more and more times they've come to realise that most people take advantage of the warm place for company more than warmth and the biggest problem is loneliness. So they continue to offer the warm place, and also offer hot drinks and cookies so people can enjoy some human company. It's an expression of their faith.

I'm sure there are many more examples but this above shows the vibrant expression of three very different faiths, with no involvement from the state whatsoever.