<p>You know, reading the rosy picture someone painted of how wonderful government establishment of prayer was back in the good ole days reminded me of my mother.</p>
<p>As a child reared in Catholic New Orleans, she was used to reciting the Catholic version of the Lord’s Prayer. When her family moved to Massachussets, there was mandatory prayer in public school, and of course they were using the Protestant version. In those days, there was almost no euchumenical contact between Catholics and Protestants; I believe my mother was told it was a mortal sin just to attend a Protestant service. </p>
<p>She and her sisters were hurt and humiliated by being forced to recite Protestant prayers, as well as concerned that they commited a sin. Had we had mandatory school prayer in Louisiana at the time, it would have been Catholic, and I’ve no doubt that Protestant children would have been just as negatively affected.</p>
<p>Those good ole days were only rosy for the people who were in power, and could dictate what religious expression to establish. The real irony is that the people who are now yelling the loudest about wanting the government to establish their religion belong to denominations that wouldn’t have been allowed to exist or to be anything but marginal sects, had the Founding Fathers established theirs.</p>
<p>It is unfair to use one small event in Salem, MA to broadbrush a hypothetical Christian theocracy. Plymouth was theocratic by Salem’s standards, and it survived without such trials. Even Jamestown, it can be argued, was theocratic since each of its governors submitted to the authority of the Church and required everyone else to do likewise. Jamestown’s Dale Code of 1611(??) was rigidly theocratic and yet the colony still survived without the sort of religious misfortune of Salem. I am not trying to advocate or even defend theocracy. I am simply pointing out that claiming such a government would not work, and then employing the Salem Witch Trials as evidence, is a terribly flawed approach. And using it to disparage Christians presents, I think, an even greater flaw.</p>
But look at the societies where, as a matter of government decree, religion specifically is banned or severely regulated. Yowsa! I don’t think we wanna go there either. I think a system where all religions are free to speak their minds without threat of government tax, where they may freely contend for the public’s will, and influence the citizenry, is best. It should be rigidly separate from government power so that no church is allowed control of government branches or any agency within those branches. But I think it should be free to speak on anything almost anywhere, including on government, and on those within government, precisely as those in government are now free to speak on people in religion.</p>
<p>“It should be rigidly separate from government power so that no church is allowed control of government branches or any agency within those branches…”</p>
<p>I agree with the essence of what you said. But, churches generate a huge amount of $$ and when they use the religion as a front to enforce their politics, that’s where it gets sticky.</p>
<p>Then you have the lobbying. There is no question that bush got into power largely because of his religious ‘base,’ and a lot of his policies have been based on pleasing them. Sticky, sticky.</p>
<p>I think at the higher levels of organization, religion and politics are essentially the same.</p>
<p>“My D was amazed that Harris got that high a percentage of votes, she can’t imagine anyone voting for her, no matter what political party”</p>
<p>My S feels the same way. He calls her ‘Cruella.’</p>
<p>Same with that bigoted dude, what was his name? the one that made the racial slurs and then lied, saying it was a ‘made up word.’ He got a lot of votes too. Amazing.</p>
<p>Being here in Colorado Springs, we get an upclose and personal view. Some good friends of mine are members of the New Life Church. I had a long lunch conversation with one of those friends whose family is very involved - choir, budget committee, etc. I was unprepared for his reaction, which had a tinge of anger to it.</p>
<p>He and his wife are now reexamining things. Not their faith, but about the church itself. Do they belong in such a mega-church? Was it right for Haggard to take the church onto a national stage? Would the other mega-church in town work for them? That church avoids a lot of the politics and attention-seeking that New Life seemed to thrive on.</p>
<p>The effects of Haggard’s actions (and discovery) affected many, many people.</p>
I’m not sure I understand you. How precisely is it “sticky”? There is a constitutional separation of Church and State in America. How much money the Church makes is irrelevant to this. Moreover, there is a Constitutional freedom of speech in America. One constitutional right or condition ought not eliminate another. Yet that is precisely what we are claiming when we say a church leader cannot speak freely lest the State gains the right to charge him a fee for the freedom. This destroys both freedom of speech and the wall of separation between Church and State. If there is a separation, then Churches have as much a philosophical right to speak on politics in America as they have to speak on politics in Zimbabwe. The mere use of words is no certain destruction of the wall of separation between Church and State, is it?</p>
<p>
How is this sticky? Bush has a constituency consisting of Americans, many of whom choose to exercise their constitutional freedom of association to attend various churches, and who exercise their constitutional right to form coalitions around certain issues. These are their rights under the Constitution, yes? Merely that they exercise them ought not give the government the right to go after their churches, demolishing the wall of separation by removing the Church’s leadership’s freedom of speech. The Church itself is not ruling government or even trying to. Its bylaws are something entirely different from the Constitution.</p>
<p>The rights mentioned above not only exist for those who go to conservative churches. They also exist for people who attend liberal churches, synagogues, mosques, ashrams, temples, and anything else. It seems to me we essentially are afraid of the power of ideas. Is there really a destruction of the wall of separation between Church and State just because a church leader gives his opinion on something outside of his church? I do not think there is. The guy is just talking. The fact his ideas may have power does not warrant a removal of his rights.</p>
No, actually. I hope everyone will forgive, but this is an issue I have been curious about for a long time. I wanna see if maybe I have a point here. It actually has a lot of relevance to this Haggard thing, though on the surface it may not seem like it does.</p>
<p>I think you’ve made many excellent points, Drosselmeier, and I’ve enjoyed reading your posts. You’re very reasonable and someone I would enjoy having a conversation with. Thanks!</p>
<p>whast you have not talked about is the tax status of churches, and the donations made there in, as well as the program Bush loves, faith based intiatives, if you want to talk about crossing of lines, Bush did that a long time ago by putting money into religious programs with little checks and balances</p>
<p>there are certain rules and it has to do with tax free status</p>
<p>to discuss seperatin of church and state without discussing $ is missing a major part of the equation</p>
<p>the rule is you cannot endorse a person…when you do, you lose your tax breaks…if you want to keep the tax breaks, follow the rules that you signed up for</p>
<p>I was simply commenting on the <em>lack of understanding</em> people seem to have of your point (willful ignorance or not, I can’t say) and I admire your tenacity in the face of the bias of most readers of this thread. Frankly, I think a lot of people are exploiting the ignorance of many people of our fundamental system of government and also exploiting people’s ignorance of the fundamentals of their own religion for their own ends. For anyone who’s interested, read Andrew Sullivan’s website. He has sold his soul (imo) for the issue of gay marriage and is purposely exaggerating the power the “Christianists” (as he calls them) have in this country for his own ends. He is also distorting Catholic theology (he claims to be a Catholic) to reach his own goals. It is nothing less than demagoguery at its worst and it astonishes me that people fall for it. I don’t blame people that don’t know any better, but I do blame those who are highly educated about our system of government and their respective religions and exploit people’s ignorance to advance their own agenda. In fact, this makes me angry. :mad:</p>
<p>Sorry guys, reducing the concept of gay marriage to “what’s the big hairy deal” ain’t gonna happen. :)</p>
</i>
<p>“Yet that is precisely what we are claiming when we say a church leader cannot speak freely lest the State gains the right to charge him a fee for the freedom.”</p>
<p>I think he should be allowed to say whatever he darn pleases, and people should be allowed to write off his Biblically-based nonsense when it is so without fear of being attacked as anti-religious. </p>
<p>As to whether a church should be taxed like anyone else, I think that’s a separate issue.</p>
<p>I would say that arguing from the New Testament that JESUS (not Paul, but Jesus) condemns homosexuality is “Biblically-based nonsense.” He did, however, seem to have a lot more to say about bankers. </p>
<p>As for the Old Testament, I read my ten commandments (not the Egpytian morality code that southern judges like to put on walls, but the Jewish ones on the second set of tablets), and if Exodus Chapter 34:20 floats your boat:</p>
<p>“20. But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.”</p>
<p>cgm: News update: David Kuo’s book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction: no imminent theocracy under the Bush administration; no fundamentalist takeover! You can sleep well! (I guess the theocracywatch.com website has to come crashing down.)</p>