Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

[nhboy (Premo)]

"St. Louis - What is Christianity's proper role in American presidential politics? This question has gripped the 2008 campaign. From the dispute over the acceptability of Mitt Romney's Mormonism, to Mike Huckabee's musings about conforming the US Constitution more to the Bible and the controversy over Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, the spiritual and secular realms have collided fiercely. Just this week, Senator Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton fielded questions from US religious leaders at a special forum broadcast on CNN.

More broadly, arguments over public policies – from war to illegal immigration – are increasingly being infused with scriptural justifications.

The media, of course, relish such controversy. So do many religious leaders, who use the occasion to offer the "real" interpretation of what Scripture says about a particular issue. As a result, religion and politics aren't just mingling – they're being wedded to the same goal: redeeming America's body politic.

A largely Protestant nation that can trace its theological taproot to Martin Luther ought to know better. As the original Reformer, Luther understood how critical it was to separate church and state and, in a more important sense, the spiritual kingdom of Christ and the secular realm where God reigns in a hidden way through humans using reason as a guide."

Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by nhboy

"St. Louis - What is Christianity's proper role in American presidential politics? This question has gripped the 2008 campaign. From the dispute over the acceptability of Mitt Romney's Mormonism, to Mike Huckabee's musings about conforming the US Constitution more to the Bible and the controversy over Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, the spiritual and secular realms have collided fiercely. Just this week, Senator Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton fielded questions from US religious leaders at a special forum broadcast on CNN.

More broadly, arguments over public policies – from war to illegal immigration – are increasingly being infused with scriptural justifications.

The media, of course, relish such controversy. So do many religious leaders, who use the occasion to offer the "real" interpretation of what Scripture says about a particular issue. As a result, religion and politics aren't just mingling – they're being wedded to the same goal: redeeming America's body politic.

A largely Protestant nation that can trace its theological taproot to Martin Luther ought to know better. As the original Reformer, Luther understood how critical it was to separate church and state and, in a more important sense, the spiritual kingdom of Christ and the secular realm where God reigns in a hidden way through humans using reason as a guide."

Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

Christians or pastors/ministers? As a Christian it is my right to exercise my faith in any capacity as well as my right to free speech.

A minister that engages in political speech at the pulpit risks their tax-exempt status.

[Patch]

Luther lived in a time and place where the Church and State where united. In fact, the Church was actually above the State. And I am not aware of anything he wrote or did that would indicate he ever conceived of a world that did not include a Church-State system. His argument was with the theology of the Church, not it's area of political influence. His argument was with the Church's teaching on how a person is saved from hell, not it’s influence in the decisions on civil matters. Luther was a Doctor of Christian Theology and his main point was “Sola Scriptura!”—Scripture alone as the sole authority for Christian doctrine. He fought the church over the belief that Scripture was our sole authority, not Church traditions, and teachings of Popes. He argued that a person was saved by faith, not through buying indulgences. At the same time, he held that government must enforce God's moral rules, but could not make rules relating to the redemption of the soul. So, his idea of separation of church and state was this—let the Church do theology (i.e. Biblical theology), and let the government be righteous and enforce righteousness. This is very different from what is being promoted today, that religion and government can have nothing to do with one another.

John Adams, founding father of our country, leader in it's independence, drafter and signer of the Declaration of Independence, first U.S. Vice President, and second U.S. President said, "The Constitution was written for a moral and religious people and is wholly unsuited for the governance of any other."

It's interesting to hear liberals trying to rewrite history, and putting forth arguments that the authors of the Constitution never intended religion to have anything to do with Government, yet we have Bible verses carved in stone on Government buildings all over the country.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by Patch

Luther lived in a time and place where the Church and State where united. In fact, the Church was actually above the State. And I am not aware of anything he wrote or did that would indicate he ever conceived of a world that did not include a Church-State system. His argument was with the theology of the Church, not it's area of political influence. His argument was with the Church's teaching on how a person is saved from hell, not it’s influence in the decisions on civil matters. Luther was a Doctor of Christian Theology and his main point was “Sola Scriptura!”—Scripture alone as the sole authority for Christian doctrine. He fought the church over the belief that Scripture was our sole authority, not Church traditions, and teachings of Popes. He argued that a person was saved by faith, not through buying indulgences. At the same time, he held that government must enforce God's moral rules, but could not make rules relating to the redemption of the soul. So, his idea of separation of church and state was this—let the Church do theology (i.e. Biblical theology), and let the government be righteous and enforce righteousness. This is very different from what is being promoted today, that religion and government can have nothing to do with one another.

John Adams, founding father of our country, leader in it's independence, drafter and signer of the Declaration of Independence, first U.S. Vice President, and second U.S. President said, "The Constitution was written for a moral and religious people and is wholly unsuited for the governance of any other."

It's interesting to hear liberals trying to rewrite history, and putting forth arguments that the authors of the Constitution never intended religion to have anything to do with Government, yet we have Bible verses carved in stone on Government buildings all over the country.

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society

"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416

"In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail to become a primary object." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808. ME 16:317

"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382

"The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and... if any act shall be... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. (*) ME 2:303, Papers 2:546

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State -- Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danburry Baptist Association

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society

Thus, that wall is well defined by saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." The state may not use it's governmental power to force views, or support the religion itself.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Thus, that wall is well defined by saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." The state may not use it's governmental power to force views, or support the religion itself.

You missed a part in your selective Underline

Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

You missed a part in your selective Underline

How does this establish a religion? Which one? And, how successful have they been in forcing their beliefs on you?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

You missed a part in your selective Underline

So, are you suggesting that secular philosophies are just as wrong to teach as religious ones, as that would force "no faith" concepts on people?

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

So, are you suggesting that secular philosophies are just as wrong to teach as religious ones, as that would force "no faith" concepts on people?

No because it states (once again)

Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights

It doesnt say to force "No Faith" onto anyone, its says to force a view onto those of "No Faith".

In otherwords, by removing religion from the Government your not pushing for the Government to remove Faith, this is the concept some dont understand.

The Founding Fathers also recognized this. What you are doing is removing any possiblity of either Faith or NON-Faith, or influence of either, from the Government. Thats not removing Religion (as in the USSR), it just keeps the Government free from that (particular) corruption.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

No because it states (once again)



It doesnt say to force "No Faith" onto anyone, its says to force a view onto those of "No Faith".

In otherwords, by removing religion from the Government your not pushing for the Government to remove Faith, this is the concept some dont understand.

But, atheism is a view of religion - a non-diest view. Secular, proven concepts are one thing, theories are another. If something's not proven nor provable, I would think it should have no bearing on what we do in government by this standard. Therefore, economists, meterologists, evolutionists, etc., should not be allowed to teach their philosophies at government funded schools without equal time to each and every conflicting idea. Or, is that just dumb?

The Founding Fathers also recognized this. What you are doing is removing any possiblity of either Faith or NON-Faith, or influence of either, from the Government. Thats not removing Religion (as in the USSR), it just keeps the Government free from that (particular) corruption.

But, forcing concepts of no faith (which is what I said, not forcing no faith, but the concepts of no faith) on someone would be equally protected against, thus wrong to do, and influencing to governmental leaders.