Post by Far Rider on Aug 6, 2009 3:06:04 GMT -8
On a political forum I happened to run across one of the peculiar arguments some use against people of faith. Some have complained about invocations of the name of the Creator in political matters, or even requests for prayers for our country.
The argument goes something like this:
“Your religion says to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. There is supposed to be separation of church and state in this country.”
For some reason, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (separation of church and state) has come to mean “you can’t talk about matters of faith in public”, when I, among others, have come to understand that the First Amendment meant a prohibition against the establishment of a national church, like the one England has.
(The church of England understood this very well, to the point of calling themselves the “Episcopal” church in America, to avoid the connotation of a national church.)
When the “church and state” and “render unto Caesar” arguments are taken to their logical conclusion, we see that number one, we are not in first century Rome. I know there are people around who think their wisdom extends to the first century and that Jesus was talking to the United States as well as citizens of the Roman Empire when He gave the “render unto Caesar” explanation, but that’s simply not the case.
In the USA, WE are Caesar. We are not governed by a King or an Emperor although if we are not careful we may be ruled by a dictator.
Number two, theologically speaking, the “church” is not a building or a denomination. It is a body of believers. It is literally impossible to separate the church from the state in the United States when both of them exist in the people, as this country is “of the people, by the people, for the people”.
The fallacious “separation of church and state”, as applied by the “freedom from religion” crowd falls apart in light of a proper understanding of just who the church is and who the state is, and the proper interpretation of the establishment clause – the prohibition of national church – becomes clear.
To insist that citizens of the United States leave their faith at the door in order to become good citizens violates the very intent of the First Amendment, and smacks of the kind of tyranny our founding fathers fought to free us from.
Don’t fall for it.
The argument goes something like this:
“Your religion says to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. There is supposed to be separation of church and state in this country.”
For some reason, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (separation of church and state) has come to mean “you can’t talk about matters of faith in public”, when I, among others, have come to understand that the First Amendment meant a prohibition against the establishment of a national church, like the one England has.
(The church of England understood this very well, to the point of calling themselves the “Episcopal” church in America, to avoid the connotation of a national church.)
When the “church and state” and “render unto Caesar” arguments are taken to their logical conclusion, we see that number one, we are not in first century Rome. I know there are people around who think their wisdom extends to the first century and that Jesus was talking to the United States as well as citizens of the Roman Empire when He gave the “render unto Caesar” explanation, but that’s simply not the case.
In the USA, WE are Caesar. We are not governed by a King or an Emperor although if we are not careful we may be ruled by a dictator.
Number two, theologically speaking, the “church” is not a building or a denomination. It is a body of believers. It is literally impossible to separate the church from the state in the United States when both of them exist in the people, as this country is “of the people, by the people, for the people”.
The fallacious “separation of church and state”, as applied by the “freedom from religion” crowd falls apart in light of a proper understanding of just who the church is and who the state is, and the proper interpretation of the establishment clause – the prohibition of national church – becomes clear.
To insist that citizens of the United States leave their faith at the door in order to become good citizens violates the very intent of the First Amendment, and smacks of the kind of tyranny our founding fathers fought to free us from.
Don’t fall for it.
