Tag Archives: separation of church and state

by

Separation of Church and State | Part II

Consider for a moment the questions we’ve asked thus far:

  • What is the Common Book of Prayer?
  • What is a Puritan?
  • Why did the British refer to the Revolutionary War as a “Presbyterian Rebellion?”
  • How many times did Congress call for a National Day of Prayer, Fasting and Humiliation?

The first two questions outline the way in which the Anglican Church was replacing the “Lord’s Prayer” with the “Common Book of Prayer” along with several other directives that positioned the monarchy over the Trinity. This lead to the Puritans wanting to “purify” the doctrine espoused by the Church of England and return to a biblically based approach to one’s relationship with Christ.

By the 1700s, the “Act of Uniformity” had been expanded to include mandates pertaining to church government – something very beligerent in the mind of a Presbyterian who subscribed to a Scriptural approach to elders and deacons as they are described in the New Testament.

Moreover, part of the “Common Book of Prayer” included prayers that were to be made for the king, which implied a form of political support regardless of that monarch’s character or conduct.1

This is what was meant by the “separation of church and state.”

The delegates that formed the Constitutional Convention were not attempting to facilitate a potentially godless society with the First Amendment. Rather, they were honoring the Authority of God’s Word by placing a limitation on the way the government could dictate the manner of your worship.

Congress could not tell you how to pray or fine you for not attending church on Sundays. There would be no legislation that dictated how a church’s government was to be structured.

But while the individual is free to choose how they worship God according to the dicates of their own conscience, the individual is not at liberty to reconfigure the Foundation upon which that right was based.

In a 2019 ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of context in determining meaning in defamation cases. They said that context is “a factor of considerable importance” and that the “…words complained of should not be fixed by technical, linguistically-precise dictionary definitions divorced from the context in which the statement was made. Nor should individual words be removed from their context and defined in isolation, before reconnecting them to the rest of the statement.2

If that ruling is to apply to the debate surrounding the separation of church and state, then you’re obligated to conclude the the Founding Fathers were not looking to limit Christianity’s influence on government as much as they were resolved to limit government’s influence on Christianity.

John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli which was designed to ensure the militant Muslims that were preying on American ships that the US was not planning on invading Jerusalem. Part of that Treaty says:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries (Treaty of Tripoli).

Some will take the statement, “…America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” to mean that the Declaration of Independence represents nothing more than a token acknowledgement of God and the sixteen Congressional proclamations calling for a National Day of Prayer and Fasting had no specific reference to Christ.

That’s just not the case.

Adams himself said:

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.3

In 1789, James Madison, the architect behind the Bill of Rights, wrote a “Memonstrance and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.” His goal was to discourage the use of tax dollars to financially support teachers of the Christian religion.

His point wasn’t to discredit Christianity or minimize its place in the public square. Again, it was a concerted resolve to avoid the sins of the Church of England in the way government was used to obligate people to process and revere God in a specific way, if they were to even worship God at all.

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.4

Again, while the individual is free to choose how they worship God according to the dicates of their own conscience, the individual is not at liberty to reconfigure the Foundation upon which that right was based.

While Madison is brilliant in his defense of not using public funds to finance religious education, bear in mind he was part of the group of men that wrote the following Congressional Proclamation:

The United States in Congress assembled, therefore do earnestly recommend, that Thursday the thrid of May next, beay be observed as a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer, that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous sidpleasure, and through the merits of our blessed Savior, obtain pardon and forgiveness…5

The Separation of Church and State was never designed to be used as a way to normalize Homosexuality or justify Partial Birth Abortion. The government of the United States, while it will not dictate how or to whom you pray, it will not be redefined in a way that removes the Divine Absolute that is both its heritage and its Foundation.

 

1. “Variations in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer”, “The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England (1662)”, http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Variations.htm, accessed June 13, 2023

2. “Supreme Court emphasizes importance of context in determining meaning in defamation cases”, https://hsfnotes.com/litigation/2019/04/11/supreme-court-emphasises-importance-of-context-in-determining-meaning-in-defamation-cases/, Herbert Smith Freehills, April 11, 2019, accessed November 5, 2022

3. “John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 28 June 1813”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208, accessed November 5, 2022

4. “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785”, “National Archives, Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163, accessed June 13, 2023

5. To see an image of the Proclamation as its preserved in the Library of Congress, click here.

by

Separation of Church and State | Part I

Nine times out of ten, when you hear someone play the “Separation of Church and State” card, they’re doing so believing that they’ve insulated themselves from having to defend their platform simply by declaring your position an illegal and inappropratiate assertion of your belief system…

Abortion.

Homosexuality.

It can be anything that is addressed specifically in Scripture. However clarifying the Bible can be in defining the difference between right and wrong, it is an unwelcome Presence in the mind of somone who prefers to declare themselves as their own moral absolute.

“You can’t force your beliefs on me…”

“Not everyone feels that way…”

(sarcastically) “You ever hear of the ‘Separation of Church and State?'”

It’s a signature tactic of the person who has something to hide as opposed to having something to say. By posing as a victim, they can sidestep any direct line of questioning because you can’t be critical of someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled cruel and intolerant.

It’s brilliant.

There are several things wrong with their argument, though.

First of all, from a historical standpoint, they’re taking that phrase completely out of context and applying it in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with same sex marriage or taking the life of your baby before it’s born.

Secondly, what they’re attempting to do is philosophically impossible. Every government that’s ever been conceived by human kind has been based on a “church” of some sort. It’s here where you can see the true purpose of those who are asserting the “separation…” argument in that they’re not trying to “separate” anything as much as they’re attempting to establish a new god, a new church and a new morality.

But how do you refute what they’re saying? How can you “argue” if they’ve secured themselves behind a wall reinforced by the kind of pity that is due to someone who’s been wounded? How do you make your point if they’re not willing to listen and instead are just waiting for you to stop talking so they can proceed in telling you how intolerant you are?

What we’re going to do is unpack all this by posing a couple of questions that you can ask the person who’s pointing their philosophical pistol at you and compel them to make your point for you with the responses they’re logically obligated to give.

Here we go…

What is the Common Book of Prayer?

It’s part of the legislative package passed by Parliament in 1558 as part of the “Act of Uniformity” which Queen Elizabeth initiated as part of relieving the tension between Catholics and Protestants. It positioned her as the head of the church and imposed a collection of state-sanctioned directives that dictated the way you were to pray, how you were to condut a church service and even imposed a fine should you decide to not attend church on any given Sunday.1

What is a Puritan?

A Puritan is someone who wanted to “purify” the Anglican Church – the church created by Henry the VIII and then later legally mandated by his daughter Queen Elizabeth with the Act of Uniformity. They wanted to distance themselves from a doctrine that was dictated by the crown and instead based on the Authority of God’s Word. The Puritans were among the first settlers of the New World along with the Pilgrims who didn’t want to “purify” the Church of England as much as they wanted to remove themselves completely from having to answer to any government interference with one’s faith.

Why did the British refer to the Revolutionary War as a “Presbyterian Rebellion?”

In the aftermath of the Great Awakening, 75-80% of the colonies were actively involved in church.2 Preachers like George Whitfield and Jonathan Edwards had successfully re-introduced the Truth of how one’s relationship with Christ was not facilitated by a liturgy or a religious institution, but was instead based solely on a personal decision to follow Him.

With that awareness came a new perspective on how one’s rights were not a king’s to dispense as much as they were God’s to guarantee.

It wasn’t just “taxation without representation,” it was the way the motherland was attempting to control church government, the way in which you to pray (which included a mandate to swear allegiance to the king) and a directive to ordain ministers, not according to the New Testament, but according to a format approved by the Church of England.

Many Americans were quoted as saying, “We have no governor but Jesus Christ.”3

This is why many redcoats and Englishmen were prone to refer to the Revolution as a Presbyterian Rebellion.4

How many times to Congress call for a National Day of Prayer, Fasting and Humiliation during the Revolutionary War?

Sixteen. And these were not generic “moments of silence.” These were specific admonishments to appeal to Christ for the forgiveness of sins and wisdom in the way the United States was to prosecute its war with England.5

Bear in mind too that the verbiage of these Proclamations were written by many who would later serve in the Constitutional Convention.

Tomorrow…Part II

1. “The Act of Uniformity” was conceived in 1558 and passed by Parliament in 1559. Its purpose was to regularize prayer, worship and the administration of sacraments in the Church of England. In addition, all persons had to attend Anglican worship services once a week or be fined 12 pence which amounted to about three days wages. (“Act of Uniformity 1558”, “Wikipedia”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1558, accessed May 20, 2023)

In 1662, the scope of “The Act of Uniformity” was enhanced to include the mandate that all ministers be ordained according to an Episcopal format and anyone who held an office within the church was to swear allegiance to the monarchy. (“Act of Uniformity 1662” “Wikipedia”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1662, accessed May 20, 2023 | “Act of Uniformity”, “Encyclopedia.com”, https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/british-and-irish-history/act-uniformity, accessed May 20, 2023

2. “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic”, https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html, accessed April 5, 2023

3. “Directory of National Biography, Vol XXV”, Harris – Henry I, Smith, Elder and Company, London, 1891, p68 (also read “The Black Robe Regiment” to learn more about the Presbyterian element that was perceived by the British)

4. “Public Statutes at large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789 to March 3, 1845, Volume VI”, “https://books.google.com/books?id=Opt0L-PDdPAC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=%22that+the+duties+arising+and+due+to+the+United+States+upon+certain+stereotype+plates%22&source=bl&ots=p2xVUkIfub&sig=ACfU3U3N9AeyAcd_E0QqZfiXJlHQXbKGTA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq8oSY0__9AhV6mWoFHduzBy0Q6AF6BAgDEAM#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20duties%20arising%20and%20due%20to%20the%20United%20States%20upon%20certain%20stereotype%20plates%22&f=false”, accessed March 28, 2023

5. To read a list of all sixteen proclamations as they’re documented in the Library of Congress, head out to http://muscularchristianityonline.com/forum/the-finish-line/

by

It’s What You Do Believe

When you hear an atheist talk about what they don’t believe, it’s often articulated in a way that sounds as though his perspective is based on an empirical foundation characterized by reason, science and compassion.

  • There’s nothing mystical or “miraculous” about their approach to the human experience.
  • They don’t subscribe to anything other than what can be proven and observed.
  • They don’t believe in Creation, they’re not overly concerned about life after death and they have a real problem with any kind public reference to the Christian faith in that they see it as a violation of the “separation of church and state.”

But, here’s the thing…

It’s not what you don’t believe, as much as it is what you do believe.

When you pop the hood on the philosophical framework subscribed to by the atheist who supposedly refuses to accept anything other than can be scientifically verified, you encounter some scenarios where a fantastic lead of faith is required in order to justify their mindset. In addition, you’ve got an approach to morality and one’s sense of purpose that reeks of personal preferences more than absolute standards which is like a football player insisting he scored a touchdown, not because he moved the ball down the field, but because he moved the goalposts.

As a born again Christian, you see yourself as someone who was on Christ’s screen long before your parents ever met. You were “fearfully and wonderfully made (Ps 139:14)” and equipped with everything you need to make a difference and not just an appearance (2 Pet 1:3). You embrace the moral guidelines coming from God as “tools” and not just “rules” that allow you to, not just succeed and prosper (Josh 1:8; Matt 6:33), but also avoid all of the pain and baggage that goes along with driving on the wrong side of the road (Matt 7:26). And when it’s all said and done, the curtains come up and rather than the show being over, the real performance begins (Rev 21:1-4).

As an atheist…

You’re a lucky accident that ceases to exist when you cease to breathe. You are your own bottom line and the only things that matter are the ones you believe to be important.

Doesn’t sound nearly as sophisticated now, does it?

It’s not what you don’t believe, it’s what you do believe.  And when you look at what an atheist actually believes – what they submit as a substitute for God, as far as explaining the origin of life and a basis for morality and significance – their platform is revealed as the nonsensical attempt to declare themselves as their own deity.

It’s not what you don’t believe, it’s what you do believe.

Bonus: The atheist platform is presented as being a non-spiritual approach to the human experience. But regardless of it’s substance, it is nevertheless a “religious” framework in that it functions in exactly the same way as a faith based paradigm as far as it being a response to those questions pertaining to creation, life after death, moral absolutes and one’s sense of purpose. From that perspective, any complaint coming from the mouth of an atheist about the “separation of church and state” is not so much as a “concern” as much as it’s a campaign to establish their “religion” as the only religious school of thought permitted in public. In that way, they are the very thing they claim to despise.

The Liberal and the First Amendment

There is no Referee