The Remnant Online

Study => Bread of Life => Topic started by: Richard Myers on December 08, 2007, 12:54:44 PM

Title: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 08, 2007, 12:54:44 PM
A most important topic that is on the minds of many in the United States today is the Biblical foundation for the American heritage of the separation between church and state. It is indeed a Biblical principle and represents true Protestantism. Just  a few days ago a presidential candidate expressed his views on the subject and promised to be faithful to the Constitution and its protection of individual liberty, most pointedly liberty of conscience regarding worship.

There is need to clarify just what the "wall of separation" is and what it is not. Satan, as usual is working both sides of that narrow road which leadeth to everlasting life.

The ten commandments, the great law of God, is the basis of all righteous and good laws. Those who love God's commandments will conform to every good law of the land. While all good laws conform to the law of God, is there any law that would conform to one of the commandments that would not be good? What are the principles involved in the separation of church and state?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Mimi on December 08, 2007, 02:23:51 PM
Hi, Richard - this is a timely topic given the atmosphere in America these days.

Absolutely, there is a potential law dealing with one of the Ten Commandment laws and its enforcement would be devastating! And that would be one to enforce upon all citizens of America a specific day of worship working against their individual conscience.

I wish for the Muslim freedom to worship on Friday just as I wish to have freedom to worship on Saturday, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.

At such time as the government sees fit to dictate a specific day of worship, outlawing all others, then we have a wedding of church and state.

Regarding principles: The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 08, 2007, 03:05:11 PM
Amen.

Homosexuals, those who promote abortion, pornographers, and all Bible haters have been very active in making "the wall" something it is not. There is therefore an effort being made by professing Christians to also make "the wall" something it is not. As is often the case, Satan is working on both sides of that narrow road which leads to heaven. It is a blessing to be able to rightly understand the personal and religious liberty that God gave America.  The Constitution was inspired and the answer for those who had experienced the loss of liberty in Europe. It was never thought that liberty would extend to immorality as we see being extolled today. Let us see both what is protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and is Biblical regarding the laws of the land.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 12, 2007, 10:16:01 AM
How far does "liberty of conscience" go?  Some say that our laws are to allow individuals to do as they please. That we ought to be able to go contrary to the ten commandments in the area that deals with our personal relationships. Is this true? Or should the laws of a nation follow the law of God in how we deal with each other?  This would surely bring religion into matters of state?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Cop on December 15, 2007, 10:04:46 PM
Interesting article from Liberty Magazine:

[Excerpts]
However, the crowd pushing separation most vigorously is also the crowd that’s trying to regulate certain religious beliefs out of existence. Pharmacists aren’t allowed to express their religious sentiments about abortion and retain their jobs. Catholic hospitals are consistently fighting attempts to force them to provide abortions despite their clear religious teaching. Catholic Charities of California is required to recognize "gay marriage" despite their own beliefs. Schoolchildren (a.k.a. individual citizens not to be confused with government officials) are told that they aren’t allowed to pray or have Bible studies on school property. In one case, schoolchildren were threatened with federal prison if they dared utter a prayer on their own volition during a graduation ceremony. The IRS has investigated churches for preaching against abortion. In short, the wall of separation is growing to enforce a certain religious orthodoxy and not protect the free expression of religion that was also mentioned in the First Amendment.

The irony of setting up such a system where beliefs are regulated to some level of appropriate orthodoxy on issues such as abortion is that the sword cuts both ways, depending on the whims of government. When right wing churches complained about IRS harassment, the left wing told them to stop talking about abortion instead. However, when an antiwar sermon brought the IRS, the left wing cried foul. The founders were rightly concerned about this abuse, which is why in the same breath of saying the state should establish no official religion, it should also in no way restrict reasonable expressions of religion.

Contrary to the opinion of some, the First Amendment doesn’t require regulating religion into hiding; it requires that church and state remain institutionally separate. The mere expression of the word "God" in a speech does not a theocracy make.

http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/679/1/101/
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 18, 2007, 06:45:48 AM
Yes, it is the case that Satan is working on both sides of the street. We must see the error in both and work towards a proper wall of separation. One that allows for "moral" law based upon Bible truth, yet does not attempt to force the conscience in matters of worship. We may indeed execute the murderer, according to Scripture, but we may not enforce Sunday laws as the pope has called for.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 23, 2007, 10:34:36 AM
How should the Christian look at legislation aimed at restricting homosexuality?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 23, 2007, 12:33:29 PM
Human legislation of a spiritual issue is always a bad thing.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 23, 2007, 07:34:45 PM
I take it that you perceive homosexuality to be a "spiritual issue"?

And murder? Is it a spiritual issue also? Or is it amoral? And stealing? Is is a spiritual issue? And how about adultery? Is it a spiritual issue? And divorce? You have quite a selection to choose from? Which will you call "spiritual" and thus disallow for legislation? No human laws for any of these "spiritual issues"?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 23, 2007, 08:17:04 PM
I take it that you perceive homosexuality to be a "spiritual issue"?

Yes, I do.

And murder? Is it a spiritual issue also? Or is it amoral?

Murder, in the sense God looks at it, is a spiritual issue. It is impossible for human legislation to curtail it. Only a transformed nature will do the trick.

Ending another person's life, OTOH, can and should be prevented by human legislation.

And stealing? Is is a spiritual issue?

Taking someone else's property is very much a physical issue. But coveting it in the first place is the root spiritual issue. Fix the root, and the fruit will be good also.

And how about adultery? Is it a spiritual issue?

Oh, yes. It's a spiritual issue that would lead to rampant persecution should humans try to legislate it.

Can you imagine what would happen if we made it illegal to look at a woman lustfully? Who is going to police this illegal activity? How would a judge determine guilt or innocence?

Of course, man can legislate what kind of sexual activity is or is not allowed. But that doesn't even begin to scratch what adultery means.

And divorce?

Sure, man can legislate that. But then, such legislation would have little or no effect on improving the godliness of marriages.

You have quite a selection to choose from? Which will you call "spiritual" and thus disallow for legislation? No human laws for any of these "spiritual issues"?

Yes, the selection is huge. But I have a simple rule to distinguish between what man can legislate, and what should be left alone: If what I do impacts another person, then the govt can legislate it; if it happens within the recesses of my thoughts and feelings, leave it to God.

For the former, the state should enforce it; for the latter, the church should work toward transforming the lost souls within its reach. If we keep their spheres of authority clear, distinct, and separate, we should be fine. But if one entity crosses the line to the other side's sphere, regardless of which entity does the crossing, the wall is broken down and the fires of persecution will be kindled.

In short, if we look to the state to enforce God's law, we're barking up the wrong tree.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 25, 2007, 10:01:23 PM
I am confused as to  your thinking on this subject Brother Arnold. Please explain how you define a "spiritual issue".  If murder is a spiritual issue then you think it is bad to legislate against it, but then you say we ought to. Help me.  :)   We are not talking about murder in the heart, but real live murder, real live homosexuality, and real live abortion.  Are these what you call "spiritual issues" that you believe we ought not consider in our legal system?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 25, 2007, 10:35:52 PM
We can, and must, limit what man can do to man. But we have no business legislating man's obligation to God.

The former is allowable in a democracy; the latter only in a theocracy.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 25, 2007, 10:47:53 PM
I agree. Can we now move on to specifics?  Back to homosexuality. It appears this is something that man does to man. Ought we have laws that relate to homosexuality?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 26, 2007, 09:06:53 AM
Back to homosexuality. It appears this is something that man does to man. Ought we have laws that relate to homosexuality?

In the fullest sense, homosexuality is something that happens within a person's thoughts and feelings. One can be homosexual all by himself. That aspect must be left between man and his Maker.

But there are aspects of homosexuality that require another person's participation. Shall we limit these activities? I think that's the kind of legislation you're thinking about.

Should we ban intimate relations between two consenting adults of the same gender? We have the authority to do that within a democracy. But on what grounds would such a prohibition be founded? What reason would I have to tell others what or what not to do in the privacy of their own homes? Give me a reason that does not infringe on the Establishment Clause.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 26, 2007, 09:55:42 AM
Back to homosexuality. It appears this is something that man does to man. Ought we have laws that relate to homosexuality?

In the fullest sense, homosexuality is something that happens within a person's thoughts and feelings. One can be homosexual all by himself. That aspect must be left between man and his Maker.

But there are aspects of homosexuality that require another person's participation. Shall we limit these activities? I think that's the kind of legislation you're thinking about.

Should we ban intimate relations between two consenting adults of the same gender? We have the authority to do that within a democracy. But on what grounds would such a prohibition be founded? What reason would I have to tell others what or what not to do in the privacy of their own homes? Give me a reason that does not infringe on the Establishment Clause.

Right now, I am not considering laws of different countries, I am only asking what God would have us do. What is right in God's eyes.  You seem to be hesitant suggest we ought to make a law restricting homosexual acts. What is the moral thing to do?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 26, 2007, 12:41:27 PM
Right now, I am not considering laws of different countries

Me, too. I'm only looking at USA, and the rights & restrictions provided by the Constitution.

I am only asking what God would have us do. What is right in God's eyes.  You seem to be hesitant suggest we ought to make a law restricting homosexual acts. What is the moral thing to do?

What God wants, what's right in God's eyes, what's moral - all of these are beyond the scope the state. If we want to keep church and state separate, we must not allow these considerations into the matters of the state. If we do, then the wall is torn down, and the momentary victory for the side of good will soon be forgotten amid the torrent that Satan will pass through that broken wall.

If we are to restrict homosexual acts, what non-religious, amoral reason could we have for it? What objective grounds can we have for restricting the actions of two or more consenting adults when done in private?

BTW, we do all know that a Sunday law can be passed today as long as a non-religious, amoral reason can be given for it, right? For example, if some economic reason can be given for a Sunday law, it will not be struck down as unconstitutional.

The same loophole we are looking for to restrict homosexual acts is going to be used to oppress Sabbath-keepers. My question is this: Do we want to make that loophole bigger by getting in the habit of using it, or do we want to plug it?

Satan doesn't care which side of the conflict tears down the wall, as long as it gets torn down.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 26, 2007, 03:14:25 PM
Then what do we do with this statement?

We can, and must, limit what man can do to man. But we have no business legislating man's obligation to God.

The former is allowable in a democracy; the latter only in a theocracy.

I believe as you do, that this is allowable in a democratic republic. I also believe that we can and must limit what man can do to man. Why would you make an exception for what a man does to a man in his homosexual acts? Is  it not hurtful? Why turn our head from this crime against man?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Dora on December 26, 2007, 04:27:17 PM
Of course, I have always known that the homosexual lifestyle was not what God planned.  He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I believe the homosexual lifestyle is morally wrong, but so is any sexual act outside of marriage, and there can be no real "marriage" between two of the same sex.

But, should we try to legislate homosexual lifestyles?  Like Brother Arnold, I do not see how we could without opening the door for the possibility for more of our freedoms to be taken away. 

As far as what "man does to man," if someone is raped, of course, that should be addressed.  But, Brother Arnold, correct me if I am wrong, I believe you are speaking of what two consenting people of the same gender do in their own homes, not infringing on anyone else?  As repulsive as the idea is to me, I have to admit that we have no more right to legislate their actions than we do the private actions of Mr. & Mrs John Doe, in their home.  At least, that is how I believe the constitution is written.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 26, 2007, 05:27:28 PM
But, Brother Arnold, correct me if I am wrong, I believe you are speaking of what two consenting people of the same gender do in their own homes, not infringing on anyone else?

You are not wrong. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

I have difficulty with infringing on the desires of two adults in the context of a non-theocracy. Why should I tell Adam to stop doing something to Steve that Steve wants Adam to do to him? As Christian, I can and must do just that. But as a statesman, what business of that is mine? If I want them to let me worship God on the Sabbath, I might have to let them worship self at home.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 26, 2007, 05:50:20 PM
And does that extend to ending one's life?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 26, 2007, 06:47:28 PM
Ending one's own life? What amoral reason would I have for preventing that? Why would I force someone to be here if he doesn't want to be here? That would be false imprisonment.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 26, 2007, 07:38:12 PM
I was not thinking of preventing one from taking his own life, but helping someone else to kill himself. Following your thinking, it would appear that both you and Sister Dora believe that it ought to be legal to do so, if they are consenting adults.  If I understand what you both are saying, you do not think the state has an interest in preventing immoral acts between consenting adults. Drug use, homosexual acts, suicide.  And, it would seem that you both would absolutely oppose any suggestion that the state outlaw smoking in one's home?  This is a most interesting position that you have taken. I look forward to better understanding how it is that you come to this belief.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 26, 2007, 08:45:01 PM
I was not thinking of preventing one from taking his own life, but helping someone else to kill himself. Following your thinking, it would appear that both you and Sister Dora believe that it ought to be legal to do so, if they are consenting adults.  If I understand what you both are saying, you do not think the state has an interest in preventing immoral acts between consenting adults. Drug use, homosexual acts, suicide.

The first principle is that morality should have no say in state matters, if we want to keep church and state separate. If we are talking about adults, with the intellectual capacity to make decisions, doing things to each other, and not forcing others to participate in any way, then they should be allowed to do what they want, regardless of how immoral. Homosexual acts and suicide, even assisted ones, are up to the individual to choose.

Drug use, OTOH, could have an impact beyond the individual. If he wants to fry his brain at home, and stay there, then go ahead. But don't drive away and imperil others. One way to address this is to allow drug use by yourself, but if you impact others with your drug use, you get a really stiff penalty, like losing a finger. That should cut down on drug use.

And, it would seem that you both would absolutely oppose any suggestion that the state outlaw smoking in one's home?

Smoking is similar to drug use. It has been shown to be deleterious, so a smoker should not be allowed to impact others by his choice to hurt himself. Smoke all you want at home, but if you let that smoke out, we cut off a finger. Pretty soon, it would be very hard for the smoker to light a match.

In summary: Do what you want to yourself, but keep it to yourself.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Dora on December 26, 2007, 09:24:49 PM
Brother Richard,
By now you know enough about me to know that I believe all of those things are wrong.  If I could talk with someone to help prevent many of these from happening, of course I would, and often do counsel people about health in many ways.  It is just that I really do believe that the more laws are enforced that affect us in our homes, we will be asking "how far will the government be allowed to go?"

I have worked some with the organization in our church called "Bags of Love."
We prepare attractive bags, filled with necessities, soap, comb, brush, toothbrush, etc, and with a homemade quilt and a stuffed animal.  These are for those children who must be removed from their homes, due to drugs and other things.  Often our leader is called in the night to bring one of these bags to social services.  Do I think it is necessary for these children to be removed?  In these cases, I do.  I also think that there have been times children have been removed when it was not to their best interest.  That is the risk we take when it is necessary that others are involved.

And, yes, as much as I hate smoking, and drinking, it is not yet against the law for anyone to do it in their homes.  What about overeating?  Or eating unclean foods? Or drinking the ocean of "pop" that is used? Or anything that is bad for you?  Should the government legislate all that?  Should the government legislate how many children a couple may have? And, other very personal things?  Should they legislate how much we spend (or do not spend) in our homes?

And, then....should they legislate what day of the week I should go to church?  And, where I should go?

I do hope you can understand where I am coming from.  It is not that I approve of the things you mentioned, it is that I believe that is the reason our forefathers came to this country, to try to get away from total state involvement, and that we may have the freedom of choice.

In His Love,

Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 26, 2007, 09:27:29 PM
I was not thinking of preventing one from taking his own life, but helping someone else to kill himself. Following your thinking, it would appear that both you and Sister Dora believe that it ought to be legal to do so, if they are consenting adults.  If I understand what you both are saying, you do not think the state has an interest in preventing immoral acts between consenting adults. Drug use, homosexual acts, suicide.

The first principle is that morality should have no say in state matters, if we want to keep church and state separate. If we are talking about adults, with the intellectual capacity to make decisions, doing things to each other, and not forcing others to participate in any way, then they should be allowed to do what they want, regardless of how immoral. Homosexual acts and suicide, even assisted ones, are up to the individual to choose.

Drug use, OTOH, could have an impact beyond the individual. If he wants to fry his brain at home, and stay there, then go ahead. But don't drive away and imperil others. One way to address this is to allow drug use by yourself, but if you impact others with your drug use, you get a really stiff penalty, like losing a finger. That should cut down on drug use.

And, it would seem that you both would absolutely oppose any suggestion that the state outlaw smoking in one's home?

Smoking is similar to drug use. It has been shown to be deleterious, so a smoker should not be allowed to impact others by his choice to hurt himself. Smoke all you want at home, but if you let that smoke out, we cut off a finger. Pretty soon, it would be very hard for the smoker to light a match.

In summary: Do what you want to yourself, but keep it to yourself.

Sounds like a real Libertarian thought. But, while you think that one who smokes or uses drugs alone in his home hurts no one but himself, this is not true. His injury impacts society.  His family suffers as do the rest of us. That is why the state has an interest in the matter. A quick study through the Spirit of Prophecy will reveal the Biblical principle that requires society to make such injurious things illegal, even if used in private. Alcohol is a good example that will help us understand why it is that the state ought to outlaw such injurious drugs. We don't wait for innocent people to be killed to cut off fingers, but we do what is obviously the right thing to do, we outlaw the drug.

Also, in your reply you used the example of an individual by himself, whereas I gave you an example of a man helping a man to kill himself. Your principle being put forth would allow this to be legal because they are consenting adults. Do you really want to go this far?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 26, 2007, 09:40:25 PM
The moral majority will eventually say that the obviously right thing to do is to keep the Christian Sunday. And you wannabe Jews who keep Saturday are causing all sorts of judgments to come down from God and injuring society as a whole. Therefore, the state should force you to do what is right, under the benevolent guidance of the moral majority.

The wall will be torn down soon enough; we shouldn't help.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Dora on December 26, 2007, 09:53:05 PM
Ellen White spoke out against the use of alcohol, and I do know she thought we should speak against it, and encourage others to speak against it.  As of now, we live in a "dry" county.  It has come up twice on the ballot to vote for or against making it legal for liquor to be sold in this county.  Both times, we have voted against it, and both times it has failed, although I would not be surprised to see it go through the next time.

But, I still believe that the government should not be allowed to make "raids" on our homes, unless there is proof of illegal action going on there, action affecting the public.

I just saw your post, Brother Arnold, I whole heartedly agree.  The wall WILL be torn down soon enough. And, yes, it will be under the "benevolent guidance of the moral majority."  It could happen so quickly!!
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 26, 2007, 10:10:42 PM
Brother Richard,
By now you know enough about me to know that I believe all of those things are wrong. 

Yes, I do, dear sister. I also understand why you are concerned. This is a good discussion so that we can think about the subject a little deeper. We have a responsibility when we vote to do the best we can to follow Biblical principles. My hope is that we will be able to better understand what is true separation of church and state. We have a very sad situation today with laws that are allowing immorality to run rampant in the name of separation of church and state. Some think we must allow immorality since morality can only originate from religion. Without God and His law, there is no morality. He is the author of moral law.

Liberty of conscience does not extend to liberty to hurt others. When one murders, he has forfeited his right to live. We need a better definition of the wall of separation.
Quote
And, yes, as much as I hate smoking, and drinking, it is not yet against the law for anyone to do it in their homes.

Personally, I think the manufacture of cigarettes ought to be made illegal. Is there any reason why we ought not do so? I can think of none. It is very similar to the manufacture of alcohol that kills so many. It also ought to be made illegal. When  you study this out, you will find that God has given us light on this and He is not pleased when we who ought to know better, do not press for laws against the selling of alcohol. It sounds rather fanatical today because so many are so far removed from Christ and His ways. Even Christians now believe that wicked men ought to be able to sell their intoxicating drinks to weak humanity.

Quote
What about overeating?  Or eating unclean foods? Or drinking the ocean of "pop" that is used? Or anything that is bad for you?  Should the government legislate all that?  Should the government legislate how many children a couple may have? And, other very personal things?  Should they legislate how much we spend (or do not spend) in our homes?

Your question is a good one. But, God expects us to use some common sense. There is a large difference between homosexuality and eating McDonalds fries. We cannot equate soda pop with vodka or how much money a family spends with use of cocaine.  We are no where near the line when we discuss homosexuality or abortion or adultery. They are of such importance that the Bible addresses them in a manner far different than lessor sins.

Quote
And, then....should they legislate what day of the week I should go to church?

Now, we have made an important shift in principle. As we noted earlier, this type of legislation is forbidden by the US Constitution because it deals with worship. One cannot legislate in matters of worship without infringing upon liberty of conscience. The state is not to restrict one's freedom of religion.  Yes, it may restrict the use of illegal drugs for a religious service, but it may not dictate how I am to worship God and on which day. The principle is clearly laid out in the first amendment to the US Constitution and I believe follows Bible principle.

To legislate in areas that deal with our personal relationships with each other does not address how we worship God.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 27, 2007, 08:47:07 AM
Sounds like a real Libertarian thought.

Because I have very strong Libertarian leanings.

But, while you think that one who smokes or uses drugs alone in his home hurts no one but himself, this is not true. His injury impacts society.  His family suffers as do the rest of us.

How does it hurt me if someone smokes in his house?

A quick study through the Spirit of Prophecy will reveal the Biblical principle that requires society to make such injurious things illegal, even if used in private.

We should stop people from hurting others who don't want to be hurt, but I don't see permission given for my conscience to be law for another.

Alcohol is a good example that will help us understand why it is that the state ought to outlaw such injurious drugs. We don't wait for innocent people to be killed to cut off fingers, but we do what is obviously the right thing to do, we outlaw the drug.

Cut off one finger when you catch someone weaving in traffic, and alcohol use will dramatically drop. Those who support capital punishment can even push to make intoxication and smoking in public capital crimes.

Also, in your reply you used the example of an individual by himself, whereas I gave you an example of a man helping a man to kill himself. Your principle being put forth would allow this to be legal because they are consenting adults. Do you really want to go this far?

If I want my friend to kill me, and he's willing to do it, why should your morality interfere with my wishes? If God gives me the freedom to choose, why do you think you have the authority to take it away?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Brian M on December 27, 2007, 08:59:02 AM
How does it hurt me if someone smokes in his house?

Does society have a responsibility to protect children? They cannot dictate whether their parents smoke in the home or not - and they suffer for it. It may not hurt you, but it does hurt the child and society at large. Think of the increased medical costs and the burden on society.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 27, 2007, 10:04:23 AM
Does society have a responsibility to protect children? They cannot dictate whether their parents smoke in the home or not - and they suffer for it. It may not hurt you, but it does hurt the child and society at large.

Then protect the child. Ban his parents from smoking. Take him out of that dangerous environment. There are several options available. But why should little Billy's lungs in Florida keep Joe Hermit from smoking in Montana? If he keeps his smoke to himself, why would it hurt anyone else?

Think of the increased medical costs and the burden on society.

Now why would Ed Smoker's lung cancer cause a burden on society? He smoked himself into that predicament, he can figure out how to get out. I allowed him the freedom to smoke, he should allow me the freedom to use my hard-earned money on what I want, not his self-imposed medical bills. So, why are Ed Smoker's medical costs a burden for me?

Note: Now you're starting to see the bigger picture. Let's keep exploring this avenue and you'll see where the wall started breaking down. I'm guessing Bro Richard already has an idea where this is headed.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Dora on December 27, 2007, 11:08:24 AM
Yes, Brother Arnold, I can see.  There are things that just cannot be legislated and this nation still be "The land of the free, and the home of the brave."  Since 9-11 there have been many encroachments on our privacy, and all it will take is some other similar event, and we will see those freedoms of privacy, and all our freedoms quickly moving more and more toward being DICTATED to us by the government, and the government telling us all of the things we can and cannot do.  How easily we could turn into a "Police State."  Is that what we want?  All one has to do is to read the testimonies of people who have lived through the communist control to know that it is not what we want!!

Again, as you said earlier, it will happen, but let's not rush it, rather, let's do all we can to help the lost to see Jesus...our Saviour.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 27, 2007, 11:38:25 AM
Think of the increased medical costs and the burden on society.

Now why would Ed Smoker's lung cancer cause a burden on society? He smoked himself into that predicament, he can figure out how to get out. I allowed him the freedom to smoke, he should allow me the freedom to use my hard-earned money on what I want, not his self-imposed medical bills. So, why are Ed Smoker's medical costs be a burden for me?

Note: Now you're starting to see the bigger picture. Let's keep exploring this avenue and you'll see where the wall started breaking down. I'm guessing Bro Richard already has an idea where this is headed.

Yes, Brother Arnold, I do. It is not my thought that I am expressing, but that which I believe we have been given from above. What you believe to be liberty, I see as imprisonment. To allow a man access to alcohol and other debasing drugs does not improve his lot in life, but rather helps to enslave him. The same is true of acts of homosexuality and general abortion. They are not "freedoms" but rather acts that reveal enslavement to powers from below. Society is not protecting freedom, but is allowing evil to flourish when it turns a blind eye to such immorality. We above all people have a responsibility to present the truth, no matter how unpopular it is. The condition that existed in the world just prior to the great flood, exists again today. The world is given over to immorality. We are to be an example of righteousness, and we may also encourage others with correct Bible doctrine.

Here is a statement of truth that will clearly reveal where I am coming from and I pray it will help others to see the issue clearly. God would have society outlaw alcohol even though you argue against this. This presents the principles we are discussing in a manner that will help guide our teaching. I pray it will bring us into unity.

     San Francisco's Object Lesson.--For a time after the great earthquake along the coast of California, the authorities in San Francisco and in some of the smaller cities and towns ordered the closing of all liquor saloons. So marked were the effects of this strictly enforced ordinance, that the attention of thinking men throughout America, and notably on the Pacific Coast, was directed to the advantages that would result from a permanent closing of all saloons. During many weeks following the earthquake in San Francisco, very little drunkenness was seen. No intoxicating drinks were sold. The disorganized and unsettled state of affairs gave the city officials reason to expect an abnormal increase of disorder and crime, and they were greatly surprised to find the opposite true. Those from whom was expected much trouble, gave but little. This remarkable freedom from violence and crime was traceable largely to the disuse of intoxicants. 

     The editors of some of the leading dailies took the position that it would be for the permanent betterment of society and for the upbuilding of the best interests of the city, were the saloons to remain closed forever. But wise counsel was swept aside, and within a few short weeks permission was given the liquor dealers to reopen their places of business, upon the payment of a considerably higher license than had formerly been paid into the city treasury.

     In the calamity that befell San Francisco, the Lord designed to wipe out the liquor saloons that have been the cause of so much evil, so much misery and crime; and yet the guardians of the public welfare have proved unfaithful to their trust, by legalizing the sale of liquor. . . . They know that in doing this, they are virtually licensing the commission of crime; and yet their knowledge of this sure result deters them not. . . . The people of San Francisco must answer at the judgment bar of God for the reopening of the liquor saloons in that city. --Review and Herald, Oct. 25, 1906.

There is a way which seemeth right unto man, but the ways thereof are the ways of death. Let us accept the light given us from above. Society has a responsibility to enact "moral" laws that do not enter into the domain of worship. The drive to legislate Sunday has nothing to do with our present discussion. There is a huge wall of separation between church and state that prohibits the state from entering into the area of worship. Not so with morality between people. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery require moral laws to help protect society. They are indeed based upon the Ten Commandments and God would have them enforced. When they are not, you end up with what we have today, rampant immorality.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 27, 2007, 11:49:43 AM
Yes, Brother Arnold, I can see.  There are things that just cannot be legislated and this nation still be "The land of the free, and the home of the brave." ... All one has to do is to read the testimonies of people who have lived through the communist control to know that it is not what we want!! ... Again, as you said earlier, it will happen, but let's not rush it, rather, let's do all we can to help the lost to see Jesus...our Saviour.

Amen, amen, amen, and amen.

There are many immoral things that must be stopped. But whenever the power of the state is used to enforce the standards of the church, big problems follow. Let the state do its job, let the church do its job, but never mix the two.

If people are attacking other people, call the police. If people are being immoral, call the evangelists.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 27, 2007, 03:24:05 PM
Yes, Brother Arnold, I do. It is not my thought that I am expressing, but that which I believe we have been given from above. What you believe to be liberty, I see as imprisonment. To allow a man access to alcohol and other debasing drugs does not improve his lot in life, but rather helps to enslave him. The same is true of acts of homosexuality and general abortion. They are not "freedoms" but rather acts that reveal enslavement to powers from below. Society is not protecting freedom, but is allowing evil to flourish when it turns a blind eye to such immorality. We above all people have a responsibility to present the truth, no matter how unpopular it is. The condition that existed in the world just prior to the great flood, exists again today. The world is given over to immorality. We are to be an example of righteousness, and we may also encourage others with correct Bible doctrine.

I agree that these things constitute bondage, not liberty. But you're not hearing what I'm saying. The point is that only Christ can set us free from these bonds. To try to control it through human legislation is only going to hide the problem. The drunkard knows that he's in trouble, but the one who wants to be drunk but is afraid of going to jail for it will remain a slave of his unconverted passions.

Your desire to "encourage others with correct Bible doctrine" shows exactly what I'm talking about. These things are the doctrines of God expressed in the Bible. But the state has no business enforcing the doctrines of your Bible. If it did, it would be respecting a religion.

Or do you also want the state to enforce the precepts of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shamanism, paganism..........? Guess what? Regardless of your good intentions, we know what's going to happen in the end: Apostate Protestantism - the Image to the Beast - will be the one controlling the state. That's going to bring a lot of bloodshed and persecution. IOW, Satan will use your desire to end alcoholism to end your life and your friends' lives.

Is that a good exchange? Maybe. IF the alcoholism was actually stopped in the sense that will be acceptable in the IJ. Unfortunately, human legislation can only stop the physical manifestations of immorality; it has no power to change the heart. And so, you will end up with dead Christians, killed by closet alcoholics who are slaves of their suppressed passions and who will not survive the IJ anyway. Bad deal all around, IMO.

I like Paul's idea:
Quote
deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5:5)

IOW, sacrificing the body for eternal gain is a good deal.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 27, 2007, 03:50:02 PM
Review and Herald, Oct. 25, 1906.

There is a way which seemeth right unto man, but the ways thereof are the ways of death.

I'll get back to you on the RH article after I read it.

As for the proverb, I agree. It just looks to me like your idea is the way of death. My idea might result in more physical death, but that is only the first death; the curses they bring upon themselves by disobedience to God's principles might open their eyes enough to see their need of a Savior from the second death. Your idea will only lead people to find good hiding places for their moonshine.

Have we learned nothing from history?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Greg Goodchild on December 28, 2007, 10:22:21 PM
We know that Jesus could have stopped Lucifer from conducting his evil sales of false ideas but Jesus did not use the power of His State to suppress Lucifer or stop his sales of evil. Jesus allowed it to develop and informed all of His subjects so that they would be informed and choose how they wanted to deal with things. After all had decided then Jesus allowed war to enter into heaven and cast satan out.

Did not the RCC try to implement a theocracy without Jesus? Did they try to legislate moral issues and used capital punishment to control behavior? Once they got going did they then go the next step and try to legislate and force moral thought and feelings? Did they try to control evagelism, conversion, and worship? We have our history lesson but since the nations did not learn their lesson it will come again.

The papacy is an attempt by a religious organization to enforce spiritual principles by the arms of the state, without Jesus. We do not live in a theocracy today that is recognized by the state. We live in a voluntary theocracy, we submit to Jesus and choose His principles to live by. We can tolerate no force in spiritual matters. The state can force principles in the arena of the last 6 commandments, but not in the first four.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 31, 2007, 12:33:54 AM
The state can force principles in the arena of the last 6 commandments, but not in the first four.

I would say that the state can force outward compliance with the last 6 commandments, but not its principles.

God, OTOH, does not use force. He only accepts the service of love.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 31, 2007, 10:27:46 AM
The state can force principles in the arena of the last 6 commandments, but not in the first four.

I would say that the state can force outward compliance with the last 6 commandments, but not its principles.

God, OTOH, does not use force. He only accepts the service of love.

Communications is difficult at best. "Principles" can be thoughts of in different ways. We will have to explore this in more detail, but first, I think we are making progress.  Outward compliance is all that is ever considered, although motive is brought up. If killing is an accident, then that is different than pre-meditation. Our laws were very good, many based upon Bible truth, the only standard of morality.

God would have "moral" laws in our societies.  Brother Arnold says yes, to the state legislating in outward compliance to the last six commandments. This would include legislation regarding making adultery illegal.  Is this correct Brother Arnold?  Do you want legislation banning adultery(real, not imagined)? We seem to be moving away from your strict "libertarian" stance?

Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 31, 2007, 12:58:18 PM
God would have "moral" laws in our societies.  Brother Arnold says yes, to the state legislating in outward compliance to the last six commandments. This would include legislation regarding making adultery illegal.  Is this correct Brother Arnold?  Do you want legislation banning adultery(real, not imagined)? We seem to be moving away from your strict "libertarian" stance?

If we are talking ONLY about the outward physical acts of adultery, then the state can legislate that. BUT, its basis for doing so must be limited to preventing the coerced participation of any of the (at least) three participants in this crime: 1) husband, 2) wife, 3) 3rd party. The state must protect each one of these parties from unwilling participation in the adultery.

But if everyone is willing, then the state has no right to prevent it.

There is also a huge caveat to consider. Let's say the wife doesn't like the husband committing adultery with the 3rd party because it sets a bad example for the children, and keeps him from doing what he needs to do as a father. The state must be careful not to legislate based on the obviously moral implications of the matter. Being a bad father is not necessarily something we want the state to judge. If it did, many pastors and elders would be guilty, as they already are before God. Moreover, the time will come when leading your family against the current of Sunday-keeping will be considered bad parenting.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 31, 2007, 01:49:38 PM
God would have "moral" laws in our societies.  Brother Arnold says yes, to the state legislating in outward compliance to the last six commandments. This would include legislation regarding making adultery illegal.  Is this correct Brother Arnold?  Do you want legislation banning adultery(real, not imagined)? We seem to be moving away from your strict "libertarian" stance?

If we are talking ONLY about the outward physical acts of adultery, then the state can legislate that. BUT, its basis for doing so must be limited to preventing the coerced participation of any of the (at least) three participants in this crime: 1) husband, 2) wife, 3) 3rd party. The state must protect each one of these parties from unwilling participation in the adultery.

But if everyone is willing, then the state has no right to prevent it.

There is also a huge caveat to consider. Let's say the wife doesn't like the husband committing adultery with the 3rd party because it sets a bad example for the children, and keeps him from doing what he needs to do as a father. The state must be careful not to legislate based on the obviously moral implications of the matter. Being a bad father is not necessarily something we want the state to judge. If it did, many pastors and elders would be guilty, as they already are before God. Moreover, the time will come when leading your family against the current of Sunday-keeping will be considered bad parenting.

Brother Arnold, does this mean that we must not legislate against murder if we believe it to be a "moral" imperative?  I know some who think we ought to murder babies minutes before they are born if they are "defective".  You seem to want to abolish "moral" law because it has it foundation in Scripture? 
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on December 31, 2007, 02:34:31 PM
Brother Arnold, does this mean that we must not legislate against murder if we believe it to be a "moral" imperative?  I know some who think we ought to murder babies minutes before they are born if they are "defective".  You seem to want to abolish "moral" law because it has it foundation in Scripture?

No. Instead, I believe the inverse: We must not use a "moral" imperative as justification for human legislation. I want to abolish the concept that we can use Scripture (whether Christian or Muslim or whoever's scripture) as the basis for human legislation. Go ahead and legislate against murder, but keep your morality to yourself. If you want to spread morality, do it at church, not the capitol and not the courts.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Dora on December 31, 2007, 03:49:47 PM
Although this may seem a bit off the subject, I see a connection with the issue as to whether or not we should have prayer in public schools. 

In elementary school, I went to a small public school, where we had the Bible read, and were expected to have a Bible text memorized every Monday morning.  In more recent years there has been so much said everywhere, (pro and con) about Bible reading and prayer in school, I have often thought about my experiences in grade school.

 And, I was wondering, suppose we had started a new school year, and "Ms Doe" turned out to not believe as a Christian, but as a Buddist, or something very different.  Would my parents have wanted me to go there then?  Would I have wanted to go there, if I had been expected to kneel at some kind of shrine to pray? Or whatever else that might have been required in a different religion in a totally different way?

Again, we do need to be careful what we try to legislate.  That very legislation we thought we wanted may come back to bite us.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 31, 2007, 10:24:20 PM
While I understand the concern, I do not understand the opposition to moral laws based upon the last six commandments. I guess if we follow the argument you present Brother Arnold, we could not say that America was created a Protestant nation?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on January 01, 2008, 01:34:07 AM
While I understand the concern, I do not understand the opposition to moral laws based upon the last six commandments.

Because they are commandments from God, which must be kept out of the state's jurisdiction. If you tear down the wall to allow God's commandments, there will be no wall to keep us safe from Allah's commandments, or Satan's commandments.

It's OK to have laws that match the commandments, and even laws that are morally sound. But such considerations and factors must be kept separate from the state's decision-making process. That is the foundation of the separation of church and state.

I guess if we follow the argument you present Brother Arnold, we could not say that America was created a Protestant nation?

It certainly is Protestant. But we need to keep clear what we are protesting about.

We protest against the church's propensity to use the state's power to coerce the masses to follow its dictates. Protestantism is the freedom of each person to follow the dictates of his own conscience, not that of someone else. We are most definitely a Protestant nation, and I want to keep it that way.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on January 01, 2008, 10:12:22 AM
A Protestant is a Christian, not a Muslim. Is (was) America a Christian Protestant nation?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on January 01, 2008, 02:17:04 PM
A Protestant is a Christian, not a Muslim. Is (was) America a Christian Protestant nation?

The US has its roots in Christianity, but Protestantism encompasses much more than religious freedom for only Christians.

Quote
Among the Christian exiles who first fled to America and sought an asylum from royal oppression and priestly intolerance were many who determined to establish a government upon the broad foundation of civil and religious liberty. Their views found place in the Declaration of Independence, which sets forth the great truth that "all men are created equal" and endowed with the inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And the Constitution guarantees to the people the right of self-government, providing that representatives elected by the popular vote shall enact and administer the laws. Freedom of religious faith was also granted, every man being permitted to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. Republicanism and Protestantism became the fundamental principles of the nation. These principles are the secret of its power and prosperity. The oppressed and downtrodden throughout Christendom have turned to this land with interest and hope. Millions have sought its shores, and the United States has risen to a place among the most powerful nations of the earth. {GC 441.1}

Supporters of religious liberty are against persecution, not just being persecuted. The right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not restricted by "as long as you do what I think is best."
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on January 01, 2008, 02:19:53 PM
Quote
Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines. Protestant churches that have followed in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience. {GC 443.3}

The "image to the beast" represents that form of apostate Protestantism which will be developed when the Protestant churches shall seek the aid of the civil power for the enforcement of their dogmas. {GC 445.2}

Being a Protestant does not give anyone the authority to tell everyone else what to do.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on January 17, 2008, 09:38:46 PM
Brother Arnold, there are some of other faiths reading what is being posted here. It is important we get this right for them as well as for ourselves and God. The immorality that has come into America has come as the result of a number of failures in our society. The educational system has lately been teaching little children that homosexuality is normal. And some have even been encouraging young people to follow this abomination.

Now, you say that I have no right to object. That I have not right to demand laws to protect children from this abuse. Your argument rises to the principle that because my objections are based on Biblical morality, it is a violation of the Protestant ethic. My dear brother, even if one hates God and has no faith in the Bible, it does not change the fact that the only morality that there is, is that morality which has it foundation in God, the God of our faith.

Our church was instructed to do all we could to seek that there would be laws against the manufacture and sale of alcohol. All that you have argued since posting in this topic is in direct contradiction to that counsel. The legislation is moral in that it is Biblical. It is immoral to manufacture and sell alcohol that lives might be ruined. But, you desire to allow man to destroy himself and others by saying we have no right to restrict his liberty of conscience. You go too far in your ideas of what it means to have "liberty". You have joined with the immoral ones who oppose morality at every step and use your arguments to do so. It has resulted in much pain and suffering and has brought our society to a level similar to what the world was just prior to the great flood. If we do not oppose open immorality we will reap what we have sown.

Having taken a strong stand against immorality, I am just as strongly opposed to those who would attempt to impose on anyone, religious laws that have to do with our relationship with God. Let the first four commandments remain strictly separated from the state. Here is where there is to be an impassible wall between church and state. The state is to keep her hands off of the church. We understand prophecy. We know the end of the story. We know that the apostate  church will turn to the state to enforce a national Sunday law that is contrary to the law of God. This is to be our concern. We need not oppose morality in order to oppose the state restricting religious liberty. There is a big difference.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on January 18, 2008, 08:58:52 AM
Bro Richard,

After all this time, you still do not know me. I said you have no right to object against immorality? I said you have no right to protect children? A review of what I actually wrote is in order.

On the contrary, my fight against immorality is on much stronger footing than yours. I fight against it by working with men and women of faith, not politicians. I fight it through the only channel equipped to defeat it - the church. That's because I know that if politicians get it in their minds that they have a say in morality, all sorts of immorality will follow. I don't want to open those floodgates.

Let politicians make laws to protect us, to keep us safe. That can even include restrictions on alcohol. But don't let them touch morality; you will be sorry if you do.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: JimB on January 18, 2008, 10:15:04 AM
Let politicians make laws to protect us, to keep us safe. That can even include restrictions on alcohol. But don't let them touch morality; you will be sorry if you do.

But restrictions on alcohol is dealing with morality. The idea that you can't legislate morality is faulty one. That shalt not murder or steal is a moral law and laws put into place by governments that reflect it are also moral.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on January 18, 2008, 11:33:32 AM
But restrictions on alcohol is dealing with morality.

No. That is faulty logic.

Morality deals with alcohol; that is true. But it does not necessarily follow from it that alcohol deals with morality. The inverse does not necessarily follow from a statement. As the SOP says, we should always use sound arguments. And this is not a sound argument.

As an example of an amoral argument against alcohol, we can say that drunks are more likely to cause bodily harm to others. Cold, hard statistics can show you that.

The idea that you can't legislate morality is faulty one.

Only if you don't believe that morality happens only in the character. If you think that morality can be achieved by controlling one's bodily actions, then you will conclude that morality can be legislated. But I don't, so I don't.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on January 18, 2008, 11:37:56 AM
But restrictions on alcohol is dealing with morality.

Have you ever taken Nyquil, which is 25% alcohol? Does that mean that those who drink Nyquil are all immoral? I don't believe that.

If you agree with me on that, then you also agree that what goes into your mouth is not what makes you immoral. Therefore what you are really trying to legislate is not what goes into the mouth, but the motivations behind it.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Dora on January 18, 2008, 12:27:05 PM
With all that is going on in the US today, this subject seems especially important.  I was trying with my husband, to sort this out today at lunch, telling him briefly what is on here, and stating my stand on it.

I hate, truly hate the immoral acts we are speaking of on here. The 10 commandments address all of them, yet not even all of the last six commandments can be legislated. Is not homosexuality a form of adultry, for homosexuals cannot be married, in God's sight. Yet imagine it being illegal to be homosexual, and if you know someone who is, should we report them to the police? And on hetrosexual adultry, what about if we see Mrs ___ dining in a little hideaway with Mr.___, should we call the police?  And, even more, there is a lovely lady walking down the street, and you see Mr.___gazing a bit more intensely at her than you think he should.  Maybe he is coveting her!  Should we call 911? What if I gossip about my neighbor?  Maybe I can be brought to court for slander, but most times, that is not the case. 

Suppose our children do not contact us for weeks or months?  That would be really sad, and certainly would not be keeping the 5th commandment, but should it be labeled a crime?  Yes, I know that under certain circumstances neglect can be a crime, if there is bodily harm because of it...but now I am only talking about emotional hurt.

What about if I am "lusting" after my neighbor's house, or her car, etc?  Unless I steal it, or kill to try to get it, am I doing something illegal?

I think what I have been trying to say on here is simply this.....we have laws in place to protect us against thieves and murderers, (and yes, those crimes include a number of other actions that can hurt us, and we do have laws for them, too.) Let me say I do appreciate very much that we have those laws, and people to help protect us.

 What else in the 10 commandments are we willing to allow the government to pass or enforce legislation on in our everyday lives?  The early Puritans in Salem went on "Witch Hunts" and burned supposed (or real) witches at the stake.  Now, they bring in millions with their books and movies. What should we do with that?

Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote a book, supposedly portraying what happened to anyone who had a child "out of wedlock."  Hester Prine wore a Scarlet A for the rest of her life.  Yet, we have about 5 children in our church with mothers who have never been married.  What should we do about them?  Should we call the government?  We could go on and on....

Personally, I believe the government is as close in our lives at this point in time as we need.  One day soon, when the 4th commandment is made of "no effect," and we are told we must worship on Sunday, or be imprisoned or killed, we will see how we did not need an overabundance of monitoring from the government.

That is my belief about it, I hope I have hurt no one's feelings, that is certainly not my intent.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: JimB on January 18, 2008, 12:40:04 PM
I'm not sure what to tell you brother Arnold. Mrs. White made it clear that the church members at the time should vote for the prohibition of alcohol. She even said that if they had to, to vote for the prohibition on the Sabbath.
 
It is true that man can only restrict behaviors. And it's also true that bad behavior comes from the heart and that only God can deal with the heart. However, until all are converted I want laws in place that restrict the behaviors of the unconverted. Without them we'd have anarchy. Whether or not you wish to label these behaviors as "moral" or "immoral" that is up to you.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: JimB on January 18, 2008, 01:31:48 PM
There use to be laws on the books in most states that made committing adultery, sex outside of marriage, and having children out of wedlock illegal. Our society today would be in a much better situation if these laws had been enforced and kept on the books. Even today Mrs. White has made it very clear that a big reason why our society is so bad off is because the laws are not enforced. Murderers and rapists are only given jail and then let free. Stealing unless it's really big is usually just a slap on the hand and a "warning" not to do it again. Justice has fallen and we are reaping the rewards.
 

Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on January 18, 2008, 01:43:19 PM
However, until all are converted I want laws in place that restrict the behaviors of the unconverted. Without them we'd have anarchy.

Do you know how it feels to write pages upon pages of stuff, and still be ignored? I do. I know it very well, and it is very frustrating. Let me try to be heard, since you guys are not hearing me.


I HAVE NO PROBLEMS RESTRICTING BEHAVIORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM THOSE WHO WOULD HURT THEM.


Feel free to disagree with me. But at least disagree with what I'm actually saying, not some straw man.

But never confuse behavior management with morality. That's why are children are so messed up - because parents think managing behavior is all it takes to be Christian.

When you say that you want to legislate morality, yet refuse to punish all adultery (including wandering eyes) with death (which is God's prescribed penalty), then you are being arbitrary and hypocritical. Half obedience is disobedience.

If you really want to achieve morality, then you had better condemn ALL sin, and punish all sin with DEATH. That's what I am pushing for. Are you ready for that? If not, then don't even claim to be legislating morality, because you are not.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on January 18, 2008, 01:47:17 PM
There use to be laws on the books in most states that made committing adultery

Including looking at someone lustfully? That is the standard of morality. You want the govt to uphold that standard?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Dora on January 18, 2008, 01:55:26 PM
Yes!  We have voted twice in this county not to have alcohol legalized at public dining places, nor the public sale of it in places such as liquor stores.  We should vote against it!

I, too, Brother Jim, agree that I "want laws in place that restrict the behaviors of the unconverted. Without them we'd have anarchy."  But, again, I feel that can only be "up to a point" as mentioned above, that the behaviors of the unconverted can be restricted.  But, I explained my thoughts on that in my post above.

As to how the behaviors are labeled, we know it is sin, and it is when someone's sins are infringing on our rights, or rights of others, they should be restricted.  The point I wanted to bring out is that we can get the government involved so much in our personal lives, we will perhaps be having problems sooner than we would have otherwise.  We are told not to hurry these things.

JimB, I just now read your last post before sending mine...maybe our laws should be stiffer, I can't answer that, but I just do not want any tampering with the constitution to bring this about....but, we know it is coming, anyway.  Daniel 11:40-45, GC 579.  And, GC294,295 and 442 speaks about the Declaration of Independence.




    





Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: JimB on January 18, 2008, 01:56:23 PM
Brother Arnold, I can not restate the law exactly. All I know is that there use be laws on the books against adultery. A very well known person in my state was recently prosecuted under this law.

Yes, I realize that my above statement missed the point you are trying to make. No... I'm not looking for thought police. 90% of the people in our country would be in jail. I would still call murdering someone an immoral behavior. I think our disagreement is semantics and definitions. You don't want to call man-made laws moral laws because they don't address the sin sick heart. Do man made laws against murder address heart? Of course not. I don't think anyone here believes that they do. But I'd still call a law against murder a moral law. Thus legislating morality.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Wally on January 18, 2008, 02:26:10 PM
Moral="of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior."
Morality="conformity to ideals of right human conduct."

Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary

Brother Arnold, I can't follow your logic (or lack thereof) anymore. Could just be my advance age, of course. ;D

It just may be that the majority's understanding of what constitutes "right and wrong in behavior" may be different than yours.  Who decides?  It sounds like you want to be the one to make that decision.  All laws, by nature, are an attempt to legislate morality of some kind.  You seem to be confusing God's law with man's law.  Only totalitarian regimes presume to legislate how you think.  Not even in the theocracy of Israel was there punishment for how one thought in their mind--only when it resulted in an evil act.  It makes no sense that a just because a law against adultery was enacted, it would also have to include the lustful thought or look.  You can call it inconsistent if you want.  But the same thing applies to laws against theft and murder.  No one goes to jail for wishing they could kill someone, or wishing they could rob a bank.  It is impossible to have laws like that.

I am becoming convinced that, in spite of well stated arguments by other members of this forum, you are not willing to change your position on anything.  But, I won't state that categorically, since I'm so new to this forum and don't know your past record.

And, by the way, you are correct--alcohol does not deal with morality--it destroys it!!!
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Mimi on January 18, 2008, 02:32:59 PM

I HAVE NO PROBLEMS RESTRICTING BEHAVIORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING PEOPLE FROM THOSE WHO WOULD HURT THEM.


Sweet Arnold ... it not a matter of someone ignoring page after page of what you are saying ... it is the way in which it is being presented that is:

#1.  Confusing
#2.  Convoluted
#3.  Sometimes seemingly contradictory
#4.  Beyond the bounds of our discussion

This is what I am experiencing - and it looks as though I am not alone. Typically you are very articulate, dear brother - but this one has been difficult to follow. Rein it in, dear brother and apply some patience. This is not an easy topic.

Sabbath blessings! /s

Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on January 18, 2008, 03:51:09 PM
No... I'm not looking for thought police. 90% of the people in our country would be in jail.

Great! Now we're getting on the same page. Though I think 90% is being generous.

I would still call murdering someone an immoral behavior. I think our disagreement is semantics and definitions.

Definitions do play a fundamental role. And if we don't get our semantics right, we will be caught in verbal traps. So let's look at murder as an example.

Define murder. Is injecting someone with poison for the purpose of killing them necessarily count as murder? How about electrocuting someone on purpose?

Now, consider those whose job is to execute those sentenced to the death penalty. That's exactly what they do. And their victims are usually not willing participants. Are they guilty of murder? Or more specifically to our topic, is their behavior immoral?

Next, consider someone who does exactly the same thing, but gets his participants by kidnapping morning joggers. Is that behavior immoral?

I hope you see that even in man's eyes, murder includes more than mere behavior. And if we consider the true standard of morality - God's law - then we go way past behavior.

But I'd still call a law against murder a moral law. Thus legislating morality.

You want true morality? Then if you want to legislate murder, you must outlaw hate. Unless you are willing to do that, then you are not legislating morality, only behavior. Immoral behavior? That depends, as shown above.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: JimB on January 18, 2008, 04:35:12 PM
You want true morality? Then if you want to legislate murder, you must outlaw hate. Unless you are willing to do that, then you are not legislating morality, only behavior. Immoral behavior? That depends, as shown above.

I disagree. Only God can legislate hate and lust. But man can legislate murder. As a matter of fact we've been told that we must.
Quote
Gen 9:6  Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
I've already said many times that man's laws can not change the heart. That is not the purpose of man made laws. I'm not sure that I understand your point in the rest of your post. All I know is that murder and stealing are immoral acts (behavior) and I want laws that control those immoral behaviors (actions). So I also wish that our voted law makers continue to legislate morality in this fashion. Do I expect these laws to change anyone's heart?? Nope!!! But our man made laws are patterned after the last 6 commandments.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on January 18, 2008, 05:09:23 PM
It just may be that the majority's understanding of what constitutes "right and wrong in behavior" may be different than yours.  Who decides?  It sounds like you want to be the one to make that decision.

I wrote this in reply to your post. Did you read it?
Where I draw the line for what you do or don't do to me is what I like or dislike. Where I draw the line for what I do or don't do with myself has little to do with what I like or dislike. It is based on what I believe God wants me to do.

How in the world can you think that I want to be the one to decide what is right and wrong? Do you read what I write? If you do, please prove it to me, because I don't think you do. In my statement, who decides what is right and wrong?

What I don't want is for you or your elected officials to tell me what is right and wrong. You can decide what you like and don't like, and even pass laws to restrict my behavior to make me conform. You have the ability to do that by getting the majority to agree with you. But when it comes to right and wrong, not you nor your elected officials nor the majority has any say. What is normal, maybe; common, maybe; socially acceptable, maybe; but not right and wrong. Only God decides what is right and wrong.

I am becoming convinced that, in spite of well stated arguments by other members of this forum, you are not willing to change your position on anything.

Is that the standard set before us? Follow the one who changes his mind? Reject the one who doesn't?

And if I happened to agree with you on those points that I didn't change my mind on? Would you then praise me for my firm stand on truth?

If you want me to change my position, it would certainly help if you fairly assessed my position before attacking it. But straw men only annoy me.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Wally on January 18, 2008, 05:16:10 PM
Stalemate!  Sorry, can't follow your line of reasoning.  Speaking of semantics, it looks from here like you've engaged in a bit of semantic confusion.  I'm in the same position as Sybil, and so will retire from this debate--at least for awhile.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on January 18, 2008, 05:25:54 PM
Here's a summary to make it simple: God decides what's moral, not you.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: asygo on January 18, 2008, 06:28:29 PM
At the risk of making things more convoluted, I'll elaborate for those who understand the summary.


An argument for logicians:

Here's an invalid argument:

Here's another invalid argument that I've seen for weeks:

I've never been good at prose. Maybe the point-by-point assertions will be easier to understand.

And with that, I will sign off. See you all someday. Email me if you need me.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Dalfie on January 18, 2008, 07:13:56 PM
Arnold,

I understand what you are trying to say... I think that our preconceptions of terms do get in the way of comprehension sometimes.

The viewpoint you present (and that of Dora's) most closely resemble the conclusions I have come to based on my study.

I think it most unfortunate to lose your fellowship due to this topic... I do hope that you will reconsider.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on January 20, 2008, 09:28:35 PM

But never confuse behavior management with morality. That's why are children are so messed up - because parents think managing behavior is all it takes to be Christian.

When you say that you want to legislate morality, yet refuse to punish all adultery (including wandering eyes) with death (which is God's prescribed penalty), then you are being arbitrary and hypocritical. Half obedience is disobedience.

If you really want to achieve morality, then you had better condemn ALL sin, and punish all sin with DEATH. That's what I am pushing for. Are you ready for that? If not, then don't even claim to be legislating morality, because you are not.

Brother Arnold, I feel as you, have you ever seen a post here that suggests one be executed for adultery? No. You miss the point. Your idea of what we mean by moral laws is not what we are saying. You want to make that our argument, but it is not. We want laws that deal with outward behavior based on what the Bible says not what you or I think. We are not asking the state to produce converts or moral people. Yet, you continue to bring this into the discussion. 

You say "If you really want to achieve morality, then you had better condemn ALL sin, and punish all sin with DEATH. That's what I am pushing for. Are you ready for that? If not, then don't even claim to be legislating morality, because you are not."

You are way off in left field. The morality you speak of is of the heart and only Christ can change that. I can speak of all involved here and say none have even remotely thought of this. And, none have posted anything that can be construed to suggest this.

You say "But never confuse behavior management with morality. That's why are children are so messed up - because parents think managing behavior is all it takes to be Christian."

No one is confused, but you. We are to legislate morality in having moral laws, not in producing moral (in heart) people. It is an easy concept. As all have been posting, we agree that "thou shalt not murder" is a moral law, and that "thou shalt not steal" is a moral law. But, you and the ACLU do not agree that we ought to have a "thou shalt not commit adultery" or "thou shalt not do homosexual acts". All would be moral laws and ought to be legislated with punishment as the society deems appropriate, not the Bible which gave guidelines for a theocracy.

Let me give an example of why we ought to have laws dealing with both of these now socially acceptable abominations. As in the case of the woman who was dragged to Christ and He sent her away without sentencing her, our laws ought to address these crimes in an appropriate manner. Sister Dora's suggestion that spies report suspected adultery is not the issue. Here is the issue. We have need to address homosexuality and adultery every time it is an issue in a divorce, custody, or adoption. But, the immoral ones are destroying little ones because of the arguments you have put forward. The guilty ones, need to be seen and marked as guilty before society, but you refuse to do so. Brother Arnold, you need to rethink your position. Many are indeed being hurt by these immoral acts and by the fact that society now has made them legal, and by so doing, acceptable. These are not victimless crimes as you suggest. Every time a child is split in half in order that the adulterer may have half, a child is hurt. Every time a home is split in half that the adulterer may get his half, a child or innocent spouse is hurt. My dear brother, you find yourself defending sin, when there is no need to.

This is a very important issue today. It is one that demands discernment and a public statement of what is not only Constitutional, but Christian. Sadly, very few are expressing the correct position. It is for a time such as this that Seventh-day Adventists have been given not only great light, but the leading of the Holy Spirit. Let us submit our ideas and our heart to Him and each other.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Dora on January 21, 2008, 12:10:31 PM
Brother Richard,
You said: Sister Dora's suggestion that spies report suspected adultery is not the issue.   I was only giving an illustration as to how such things can get out of hand when our government is given too much authority over our lives, and how such things are reported, whether true or not.  Again, look at the communist countries, everyone turned against his neighbor.

If we want to get to the root of so very much of our trouble, IMHO, we would attack the entertainment industry, but that won't happen, for there is too much money involved. I won't even go into all the ways, but most of the world (even "Christians,") invites filth into their homes every day, and thinks nothing about it, exposing the small children to the most horrific crimes, all kinds of sexual acts, and words that almost sear the ears off a Christian's head, it would seem.  I am sure you don't allow this in your home, and I do not believe anyone on this board allows it, for I see us as a committed family in Christ.

 My friend went to CA to visit her family, and she was telling me how shocking it was to see her 9 year old grandchild playing on the floor, with the TV blasting out obscenities.  Now, I could believe it would be good to stop these things, but would that be removing "freedoms of speech?"  There is such a fine line.

Yet, how many of us would be willing to allow the government to come and tell us what kind of electronics we can have in our home? What we watch, what we listen to? That is where it all begins, with our eyes, with our thoughts, before it becomes behaviours. Can those things be legislated?

I want laws in place to restrict behaviours, but we do have them, thankfully.
And, as much as I don't believe homosexuality is right, I don't want someone beaten to death and hung over a fence, and the law blink their eyes at it.  Not only do I care about that being wrong, but soon it will be that "if you are different, in any way, such as going to church on 'the wrong day' you may be thought to deserve bad treatment."

I won't even get into "behaviour management and morality," there definitely is a difference.  But, yes, I do want dangerous people locked up, I do want laws against drunk driving, and on...and, again, if I were going to attack morality through management by the state..I think I would start with the entertainment industry.  But, again, that is not going to happen.

Have I made myself clear at all?  Each time, I think "I just won't post on this topic again, for I cannot get across what I mean, and don't understand why I can't."  Yet, I keep trying.....
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on January 22, 2008, 10:19:13 PM

Have I made myself clear at all?  Each time, I think "I just won't post on this topic again, for I cannot get across what I mean, and don't understand why I can't."  Yet, I keep trying.....

:)  It is an important topic. You keep posting because you know that God would have us reason together in a loving and kind manner. You are safe in doing so.  :)  I understand your thinking. The reason why I respond is because I see an opening to move us closer together. I know what is your concern. I too am concerned. But, hanging a homosexual on a fence post has nothing to do with the laws that made it illegal to attack another human in such a manner(homosexual) even if he consented. It is a crime and there is a victim. It is the same thing with sex with animals and amalgamation. Your argument against civil laws based upon Bible law falls apart quickly if we are given time to explore where it leads. Amalgamation in the interest of science is what is happening. Only morality, Bible morality, would understand how wrong this is. The majority are going to allow this. They are not caring about God and His Word. God's Word tells us in advance, but the world learns after the disaster, and even then continues ahead.

No, we need to look to Scripture as our pattern, not to man's wisdom. Laws need to be moral, not immoral. The involvement of the state in church matters is forbidden. Of course one must consider that if the "church" wants to sacrifice children it is not what we are talking about. This subject is not that difficult for us to figure out. But, we must look to the Bible for our wisdom, not man. The laws of societies around the world are based upon the law of God. Yes, some depart more than others and all are moving away more and more as the end nears. My concern is that we follow the light we have which includes supporting laws against the manufacture of alcohol. Looks pretty far out in the discussion we have been having. But, you know it is true and it will help you to find the right position in regards to having moral laws. Brother Arnold is dead set against such legislation. He is a "libertarian" and wants all to do as they wish in their own home. Let them kill themselves and others, then throw them in jail. No, that is contrary to the light we have been given.

We will get there. My concern is that there are many who are following this subject and they need to see a true Biblical and Constitutional position on this coming from our church. The ungodly ACLU position is to be argued against. And, so is the position of the "moral majority", the Evangelical Right who would remove the true wall of separation between church and state.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Wally on January 23, 2008, 03:42:55 AM

 My concern is that there are many who are following this subject and they need to see a true Biblical and Constitutional position on this coming from our church. The ungodly ACLU position is to be argued against. And, so is the position of the "moral majority", the Evangelical Right who would remove the true wall of separation between church and state.

Thank-you Richard for that last paragraph.  I think that sums it up nicely.

I am sorry that Arnold got upset enough to leave the scene, hopefully not permanently.  We may not always agree on all points in these discussions, but I believe that one of the purposes of this and other forums is to lift each other up, to learn from each other, and to encourage each other to become more grounded in the truth.  If others do not see it our way, so be it.  If our position is true, and others are seeking truth, they will see it in time--if it is essential to their salvation.  The converse is also true:  if my position is wrong and I am seeking truth, God will show it to me in time--if it is essential to my salvation.  But I hope that none of us will become so upset over the fact that our position is not shared by the others on the forum, that we will depart in a bad frame of mind.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on January 23, 2008, 03:48:55 AM
Sister Dora, I was thinking about your concern with the foul entertainment industry and realized that you do not want pornography sent into people's homes by this foul industry, do you? Shall we allow the manufacture of the most foul pornography and then allow it to be distributed over the internet in America? Do you want laws that allow American companies to produce such foul things in the name of "liberty"?  If so, you have a lot of people who are not even Christians that do not want this and will vote to stop it. And how do you feel about laws that stop prostitution? Shall we make this a forbidden area? Open the door wide to immorality? No, I think when we take a closer look at this argument of not allowing moral laws, we shall see the absurdity of it.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on January 23, 2008, 03:59:06 AM

I am sorry that Arnold got upset enough to leave the scene, hopefully not permanently.  We may not always agree on all points in these discussions, but I believe that one of the purposes of this and other forums is to lift each other up, to learn from each other, and to encourage each other to become more grounded in the truth.  If others do not see it our way, so be it.  If our position is true, and others are seeking truth, they will see it in time--if it is essential to their salvation.  The converse is also true:  if my position is wrong and I am seeking truth, God will show it to me in time--if it is essential to my salvation.  But I hope that none of us will become so upset over the fact that our position is not shared by the others on the forum, that we will depart in a bad frame of mind.

Brother Arnold has a tough skin. He is ok. He just likes to present the argument for us to consider.

Brother Wally, you are right! We want to know the truth, that is why we read and post. We are not stuck in error. If it be wrong, we want to know it. Yes, you are acting according to Bible principle and we so much appreciate your participation. Some enter into these difficult discussions bent on all seeing it their way, but are unwilling to listen to what others say when it contradicts their understanding. This is not good. We must listen to others and do so in a gentle manner, but while holding firm to what we understand to be truth. This particular subject is important even though it does not bear directly upon salvation. The decline in morality is a result of many things, not the least of which is the legislation that abandons Bible morality, much of which is pushed  by the ACLU. What children are exposed to in society has a lot to do with their perceptions and their character formation.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Dora on January 23, 2008, 07:56:48 AM
Brother Richard, here I go again!  Let me try once more! :)  You said:"Your argument against civil laws based upon Bible law falls apart quickly if we are given time to explore where it leads

I did not mean to give the impression at all that I do not believe civil laws should be based on Bible laws. In the past I have taught the Junior class using that very illustration, as to how much worse this world would be without those civil laws, and that most are based on Bible laws. 

For example, the city near us has gone "smokeless" even in their bars.  That is ok, it may keep some people from dying with lung cancer.  If the state wants to pass laws against prostitution, that seems like it would be a good thing.  Who wants to see such things being practiced?  Now, to the entertainment industry, from the day Rhett Butler uttered his famous words in "Gone With the Wind," little by little cursing has become common, and filth of all kinds has crept in. If laws were made to keep this off the airwaves, that would be fine with me. But, those laws will not be made, there is too much money involved, so we have to make choices as to what we will personally do. That is why we use a TV only for Christian videos, it is not even hooked up to an antenna. I don't even want 3ABN, for I had rather have more choice as to what I watch.

Now, here is where my thinking seems to get confusing to you and some others.  I was talking with my husband about this a while ago.  I asked him if he thought there should be laws preventing the entertainment industry to have filth and pornography on the TV and the Internet.  Well, of course, the answer seems like it would have to be yes...but what if they did not stop there?  What if they said, "The Remnant Online" is offensive to some people?  Amazing Facts, and other sites and programs which have the truth?

And, once more, I will ask, what if one day the police came to your (or my) door, saying they had a report that you were breaking the law because you were watching a video on let's say, "The State of the Dead?"  Let's say you have showed it to your neighbor, and they told the police, stating that they just know that "Uncle Joe" is in Heaven right now, and you are breaking the law for saying otherwise.  And, some may say, "That is just too drastic, that couldn't happen."  I hope you are right, but my fear is this about the home.  Once the state is allowed to monitor our homes, (and no doubt that is soon coming, and to some degree is already here,) how far do you think they will be able to go?  As far as they want, according to the individuals who are in charge of the monitoring.  All one has to do is read true accounts of what has happened in the past, and is still happening in some places.  I am wondering, unless there is personal harm to someone reported, should our homes be invaded?  Is there no privacy left?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Cop on January 24, 2008, 08:36:05 PM
Dora said:
Quote
I was talking with my husband about this a while ago.  I asked him if he thought there should be laws preventing the entertainment industry to have filth and pornography on the TV and the Internet.  Well, of course, the answer seems like it would have to be yes...but what if they did not stop there?  What if they said, "The Remnant Online" is offensive to some people?  Amazing Facts, and other sites and programs which have the truth?

Recently, Doug Bathelor stated that Amazing Facts has been banned and removed from Canadian TV. This is because of his statements from Scripture concerning homosexuality being a sin. Due to this sexual perversion now being considered as a protected right, anything that offends those who practice it is now illegal. TV and radio programs are now being removed and pastors have been jailed because they "offend" homosexuals. If SDA Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D) gets her way, this will also be the law in the U.S.

Did this come to be because of laws restricting homosexuality, pornography, foul language, etc.? No. It has happened because all laws making such activities illegal have been declared 'null and void' and restictive of the rights of a few by the Supreme Court. Whenever evil is not restrained, it grows, contaminates the pure, spreads its poison and destroys.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 18, 2009, 06:30:19 PM
I asked him if he thought there should be laws preventing the entertainment industry to have filth and pornography on the TV and the Internet.  Well, of course, the answer seems like it would have to be yes...but what if they did not stop there?  What if they said, "The Remnant Online" is offensive to some people?  Amazing Facts, and other sites and programs which have the truth?

As Brother Cop has pointed out, it is already happening. The two are not connected. Filth and immorality are running rampant. What if instead of just on television, they put their filth on top of cars and paraded it around for all to see? I am not talking about soft porn, but hardcore. Are you still willing to allow man to endanger our children and ourselves? There is common sense involved in this. Fear cannot move us to make decisions as to what is moral and lawful. Right now there are indeed laws against pornography on television. It is good and we need to fight any change, even at the risk of other laws that will hurt us. Right is right and we need to have moral laws based on Bible morality.

More than having a law, the principle is what I am presenting. Americans need to see where the line is to be drawn in principle between church and state. It has nothing to do with moral laws between people. It has to do with how we relate to God. This is the correct principle we are to teach when discussing separation of church and state. And there is to be no religious test, no state religion, nor any restriction against the freedom to worship.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Sister Marie on December 18, 2009, 08:44:30 PM
This is so true. I am going to take this one sentence here...
Quote
"There is common sense involved in this."
This too is true, but sad to say, has anyone noticed that they don't make sense? We present sense and they don't see sense. They are so filled with self will and desire and deception from Satan that they cannot see what they are doing. It is very hard for us to fight against people who don't think on a sensible note, especially when so much of the world is on the same sinking ship as they are. [/i][/b][/color]
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on December 19, 2009, 08:23:57 AM
The idea of putting their filth on monitors perched atop cars is being done. When taking my mother to the hospital in San Francisco, we just happened to arrive on the night of the homosexual celebration. Besides having naked bodies in the streets, we had to ignore the monitors on top of cars projecting their filth. Yes, God would have moral laws rejecting such filth from entering into the minds of those not yet completely subdued by the evil one.

And having one monitor was not enough. There were four so that all could see their filth. This is an extreme, but it gets the principle across. It has nothing to do with separation of church and state. It has to do with moral laws to protect society. Right now, the pornography is kept off the airwaves, but it is broadcast via cable into homes and hotels. The next step will be via the airwaves unless the pope and the evangelicals are successful. They are fighting against the filth. Yes, Satan works both sides of the street. Where will we be found? Wise, yet harmless.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on August 06, 2010, 05:52:13 AM
California's prop 8, banning homosexual marriage has been declared illegal by a homosexual judge. This issue will be appealed probably to the US Supreme  Court. We can expect that separation of church and state will be an issue. Because homosexuality is viewed as immoral in the Bible, Christians and others do not want their children taught that it is something that is not immoral. No matter how much people want to avert this truth, it is at the foundation of the battle.

The ACLU has used the argument of separation of church and state to support immorality. They say that religious morals need to remain in the church, not in the public. Christians need to set the subject of separation between church and state on a secure footing. It does not mean that society has no right to legislate moral laws. To the contrary, the only morality there is, is found built upon God's law and all societies that are civil have based their legal code on those commandments which deal with man's relationship to man. The first four commandments deal with man's relationship with God and are not to be legislated.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on August 06, 2010, 10:34:20 AM
In contemplating the outcome of the homosexual judge's decision to overturn the voters of California, I realized that when one neglects to do what is right, it has its influence for a long time. The Supreme Court judge that will decide this issue, if it goes to the Supreme Court, is probably Anthony Kennedy. The court is half liberal, half conservative with Kennedy being a swing vote. How does Kennedy look at such things?

Well, he is not opposed to homosexuality. He has voted against laws against homosexuality. The Court is a Catholic court, but that does not insure support for Biblical morality. Laws ought to be moral and this we do not see in the Catholic vote on the bench.

There is another similar case winding its way to through the courts that may hit the US Supreme Court before this one. A U.S. District Court in Massachusetts ruled that portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) are unconstitutional. DOMA defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman and prevents states from having to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Obama abhors the Congressional law signed by GW Bush. They may not defend the law.

It is a revelation of where we are in the scheme of things. The world is as it was at the time of the flood. But, this is not an excuse to ignore the indoctrination of children into immorality. Separation of Church and state was never intended for such a purpose. The legalization of immorality is not the intent of the wall of separation between church and state. This is a modern development brought about because of the decline of morality in the church.  

Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on September 21, 2010, 09:33:40 AM
It is interesting to note that England has just officially welcomed the pope. Has this a bearing on the separation of church and state? Some have expressed that thought since it has been many years since such a thing has happened in England (prior to the Protestant Reformation).

When two countries get together on a political basis, as is this visit, and one of these is a religious state, the Vatican, then there is a concern about the separation of church and state. The reformation was founded on the principle of separation between church and state.  Here we find some who bring up the subject of the "Protestant Reformation" during his visit:

“We believe in the protestant reformation, and we stand here to celebrate it today – we stand for the same principles that John Knox did.

“How dare the Pope come here on the 450th anniversary of the reformation?”

 “We reject the word of the man Joseph Ratzinger, who claims he can give salvation and claims if you pay £25 to attend the Mass in Glasgow you will have years of purgatory with your sins – there is no such thing.

“The Pope claims he is another Christ, but there is only one Christ and we stand for salvation through him alone – not from the word of a man.

“No sacrifice but Christ.
  source (http://deadlinescotland.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/pope-visit-sparks-rev-ian-paisley-protest-in-edinburgh/)
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on November 15, 2010, 06:58:51 AM
Because of the spurious argument that the ACLU has made that the wall of separation between church and state addresses any "moral" legislation, many Protestant Christians have been led to a point where they want to tear this wall down. But, they go too far. The ACLU is wrong. There is a wall, but it only speaks to the issue of the first four commandments, which relate to how we worship God. There is to be no legislation interfering with our worship of God. There is to be no state church.

Can we point to churches that want to violate this Constitutional principle? And what is the result of tearing down the wall of separtion  beteen church and state?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Wally on November 15, 2010, 10:54:43 AM
I'm not sure about specific churches, but there are some ministries who make no bones about their opposition to the principle of separation of church and state.  Coral Ridge Ministries is one prominent one that comes to mind.  It was founded by D. James Kennedy, who died several years ago.

It is quite clear to me that the elimination of the wall of separation between church and state would lead inevitably to a situation similar to that during the Dark Ages.  I'm always amazed at how short-sighted these people are.  How is it that they cannot reason from cause to effect, and see that whenever government and religion mix, persecution of the minority is guaranteed?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: JimB on November 15, 2010, 01:33:49 PM
The argument is that the term "wall of separation" is not found in the Constitution and that is correct. That term comes from a personal letter sent to someone by Jefferson who was trying to explain what the founders were trying to do. It was clear that this what the constitution and bill of rights were meant to do. Although the exact term may not be found in the constitution itself you will find it in the principle behind it. I don't have time now... but it would be interesting if someone could find and post that letter from Jefferson so we could all see it.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: colporteur on November 15, 2010, 03:51:42 PM
That is such a pitifully weak argument that evangelicals and Catholics try to get mileage out of. The word "Bible" does not exist in the entire Bible yet there is not a campaign against referring to it as the Bible. A little common sense should tell people that your relationship between you and God is between you and God. I guess is common sense were so common we would not be headed toward persecution.

I believe the problem is in understanding what it means to have separation of church and state. Irrespective of what you wish to call it the constitution is clear that no law is to be made in respect to a religion. Of course they must necessarily twist the true interpretatation of the constitution to extreme to make it say exactly opposite of what it says and then bring in a Sunday law. Just one of many ways they circument the constitution is to claim a Sunday law is not in respect to any religion. Riiiight !  It's secular and the Pope is not Catholic either. Another way they deviate is to say that a Sunday law is not in respect to any particular religion but for all religions ? How about SDAs? Is it in respect to them? Only if they desire to force them supposedly for their own good.  It is amzing how Satan takes control of the mind. He led his friends to burn God's people at the stake and then led them to rationalize that this was not only for the good of society but it was for the good of the one who is doing penanace for his own sins by his own blood atonement.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Mimi on November 15, 2010, 03:59:15 PM
Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.


http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: JimB on November 16, 2010, 06:40:34 AM
Thanks Sybil, it's clear to me that the unmentioned "wall of separation" was the intent of the founders. However, it's a tricky thing to say that I know the intent of the authors. That is how the constitution gets re-interpreted. Because judges believe they know the intent of founders of this "living and breathing" document.  ::)
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on November 16, 2010, 11:48:12 AM
We certainly have the words of Jefferson as to what they intended. And their intentions were very good when seen in the light of Biblical truth. Protestants above all people ought to understand that you don't legislate the first four commandments. Luther understood and the reformation clearly taught liberty of conscience. But, it seems few rightly understand what it means to be a Protestant.

This brings me back to my question as to which religions may think it proper to legislate in this area? I am not asking for opinions, but rather factual information that reveals some religions do not respect the United States constitution and the liberties granted therein.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on January 31, 2011, 08:39:22 PM
The Protestant Reformation was based upon liberty of conscience and "Sola Scriptura", the Bible and the Bible only.  Both were unknown in Roman Catholicism at the time. What is the Roman Church's stance today on the important Biblical principle of "liberty of conscience"? I have studied this matter quite a bit, but would like to know that others think.

Here we find being reported some thoughts regarding liberty of conscience by a Roman Catholic priest:

For the future of the dialogue, Fr. Samir believes there needs to be a new recognition in Muslim countries of the need to respect freedom of conscience and the rights of religious minorities. He said few Muslims have yet to see the issue as important in political or religious terms.

“The importance of liberty of conscience, few people feel that or understand it,” he said. “But the Pope is repeating it — and in my experience it is fundamental.”

While he is optimistic about the possibilities of peaceful co-existence, Fr. Samir believes there must be an agreement within Islam that all violence is “anti-religion” and in fact, a work of the devil.  source (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/beneath-turmoil-in-the-middle-east-signs-of-new-movement-for-muslim-renewal/)

These are very strong statements coming from an institution that has in the past not valued liberty of conscience in matters of worship. It would be a great blessing to know that the Vatican and her church will not attempt to interfere in state matters that involve matters of worship.

The Roman priest, Samir, has stated an important Biblical truth, "The importance of liberty of conscience....in my experience it is fundamental." And he states that "the pope is repeating it--" They are correct when they state that the Muslim religion does not separate church from state. Therefore, the state is put in the position to force allegiance in matters of worship. Thus we see violence against those who convert from the Muslim religion.

This Roman priest has introduced the subject of separation between church and state and has indicated that Rome values the Protestant principle.  Commenting on Islam he said “In their mentality, the West is still seen as Christian nations. It is still Christianity against Islam — precisely because they don’t make a distinction between religion and the state.”  Often in false religions we find inconsistencies in such important matters.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Mimi on February 02, 2011, 08:40:31 PM
Quote
Often in false religions we find inconsistencies in such important matters.

I should say so!
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Marelis on February 04, 2011, 09:36:40 AM
The Protestant Reformation was based upon liberty of conscience and "Sola Scriptura", the Bible and the Bible only.  Both were unknown in Roman Catholicism at the time. What is the Roman Church's stance today on the important Biblical principle of "liberty of conscience"? I have studied this matter quite a bit, but would like to know that others think.
The current pope and his bishops may give the appearance of defending religious liberty but we know that the papacy does not change.  And so we look for inconsistencies.  The RCC says one thing in and for the US but in practise does not encourage such policies in Catholic countries like Spain and France.

Time will eventually reveal that the papacy is happy to embrace and accommodate all religions so long as they acknowledge the authority of the papacy and accept its token of authority. 
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: colporteur on February 05, 2011, 12:17:40 PM
The other day I listened to a radio program in the vehicle while driving.
The Grace Baptist Church was talking of their roots and how Biblical they are. They were correct in that they were talking about the separation of church and state being  necessary for freedom. They talked positively of William Miller and the Great Awakening. Unfortunately they did not follow through beyond the Great Dissapointment but it was nice to see that they at least held to the separation of church and state. Either these churches will repudiate this or else they will come inot the movement spawned at the time of the Great Dissapointment. We have a work to do. I found myself wishing I could speak with the pastor after the broadcast and fill in the empty blanks. He may know something of what we know but I somehow doubt that he has seen the whole picture.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on February 05, 2011, 03:05:36 PM
No, he has not seen the whole picture. Many have not. It is why this topic is so very important. The honest of heart will understand that Islam must allow free choice in matters of religion. There can be no love of God when it is forced. Love is awakened by love, not by compulsion. Laws that are moral in regards to interpersonal relationships are within the bounds of government. But, only in  theocracy can there be laws dealing with how we worship God. We have no theocracy today. It ended with Israel. God dwelt with man in His temple, but that is no longer. He now dwells in the heart of all will invite Him in.

And the laws of how we relate one to another are to be moral laws. There is only one standard of morality. It is found in Scripture.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on February 21, 2011, 10:13:00 AM
The meltdown in the Middle East and Northern Africa is an interesting lesson to follow that pertains directly to our current topic. The issue is said by many to be the need for democracy in these countries. God would have liberty for all of His children. But, because we are living at the very end of time, it appears that Satan will not be allowing liberty of conscience to be a statute in most countries in the world. The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not the pattern for many other countries, and I don't think we shall be seeing such governments established in these Muslim lands. From my reading of Bible prophecy, it may be that Jordan is the best chance for such a government, but I even doubt that. My understanding of the Islamic faith is that there is no provision for liberty of conscience, and that there is no provision for separation of church and state. They appear to be very closely aligned with the teachings of the papacy in this area. The church is to rule the governments and the individual is to follow the dictates of the leadership and if not, then the strong arm of government is to enforce church dogma.

We are witnessing the last struggle amongst nations and religions just before Jesus returns.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Donna H on February 22, 2011, 12:22:59 PM
Time will eventually reveal that the papacy is happy to embrace and accommodate all religions so long as they acknowledge the authority of the papacy and accept its token of authority.  

I have the suspicion that, to the Catholic church, freedom of church and state is intended to lead to the false unity we are seeing so much of now in this world: all religions are equal, that the common themes of different faiths are more important than holding true to correct Biblical understanding.

Has this priest said anything as to why he said this? Has he addressed his logic and reasoning, his background  and has he addressed the contradictions with the RC church's past actions in this principle?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on February 22, 2011, 01:12:31 PM
Those are very good questions to ask, Donna. I doubt that you will find that the papacy nor Islam has changed the foundation principles of their religions. From what I have seen in the world today, both would like to use the state to enforce legislation regarding matters of worship.  Islam does not deny this. Many Protestants and Roman Catholics deny that the church would force matters of worship. But, we are seeing a change in attitudes.

The importance of this topic today can be seen by the lack of moral laws and the response to such abominations. We have good being called evil and evil being called good and legislated. Obama has a national day to honor homosexuals.

The whiplash is coming and it will not stop with legislation to control immoral acts between people, but will enter the domain of worship where the state has no business. Protestantism is responsible for the freedom of religion found around the world. The pattern was established by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. But, America appears to be quickly repudiating its Protestant heritage. The papacy has called for national Sunday laws around the world. This is contrary to what the Roman Catholic priest has stated. Fr. Samir must not be aware of the call for the state to enforce Sunday sacredness, unless he does not really believe "there needs to be a new recognition in Muslim countries of the need to respect freedom of conscience and the rights of religious minorities."
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on March 02, 2011, 05:42:31 PM
 Christian Killed In Pakistan

9 Militants gunned down the lone Christian in Pakistan's gov't, the second assassination in 2 months of a senior official opposed to blasphemy laws that impose the death penalty for insulting Islam. Shahbaz Bhatti, a Catholic, was shot at 8 times in his car outside his mother's home. Al-Qaida and a Taliban group claimed responsibility. The blasphemy issue has splintered the ruling coalition.  source (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/564776/201103021914/Christian-Killed-In-Pakistan.htm)
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on July 03, 2011, 02:45:38 PM
One may ask, how is it that homosexuals are able to persecute Christian children in public schools? And how is it that they are able to be married in some states?  One enabling factor is that there are professing Christians who believe for a number of reasons that it is not right to oppose their progress.  One of the arguments put forward is the separation between church and state.  Let us hear the argument for doing so if anyone has any thoughts on it.  I don't see any moral basis for voting for homosexual marriage based on the principle of separation between church and state any more than I would believe that we ought not have laws against murder because of separation between church and state. That a "Christian" would support or allow by his silence the recognition by the state of homosexual marriage reveals how far removed from Scripture many in the church now find themselves.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: JimB on July 03, 2011, 04:28:18 PM
Let us hear the argument for doing so if anyone has any thoughts on it. 

Not that I'm making this argument ....but what I've heard people say/write is that to prohibit homosexual marriage is forcing "your" religious beliefs into state/federal laws and since it is your religious beliefs that compel you to vote or legislate this way you violate the separation of church and state. In other words you are forcing your ideas of morality on others who don't believe the same way.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Wally on July 03, 2011, 05:14:10 PM
One problem with that argument is that is sidesteps the issue to make it one of religious persecution (forcing one's religious views on a minority), when in reality it is one of civil order and the preservation of a stable society.

History is on the side of those who wish to retain the historical institution of marriage as it has existed from the beginning.  It promotes a stable society by facilitating stable families (the current proclivity for easy divorce notwithstanding).  Societies that have stable families prosper.  A departure from the historical institution of marriage will retard civilization, not advance it.  Any new definition of marriage will lead to a chaotic situation.  Government will not have the means to meet all its obligations to all the new spouses created by this new law.  This reaches into many areas:  social security payments; disability; insurance; etc., etc.  It will open the proverbial Pandora's box and lead to many untended consequences.

I'm not a lawyer, an historian, or an orator, but I believe someone out there could stand before Congress and make a compelling argument for keeping the traditional institution of marriage intact--without even mentioning religion.

But I believe this will get worse before it gets better.  The "moral majority" will get pushed too far, and the backlash could be one of the catalysts that leads us down the road to the end of religious liberty.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on July 03, 2011, 08:19:52 PM
Yes, Wally that is exactly what is going to  happen. When immorality gets to where it today, when evil is called good and good is called evil, then you know that something is going to happen.  The ACLU has taken the side of the immoral ones by making the argument of separation between church and state.  The wall of separation has nothing to do with moral laws, it has to do with establishing a religion or prohibiting one. All immorality between people may be legislated. One may ask, what is immoral?  And, there we see the reduction of a once great Protestant nation that had no problem in knowing right from wrong, to a "professing" Christian nation that will indeed use this battle to move beyond what is Constitutional and impose a religious law having to do with worship.

There  is nothing unconstitutional about legislating laws against homosexuality, incest, or adultery.  When divorce is treated as 50/50 split after adultery, you can know that the society is far gone. Splitting the kids down the middle after such a crime is certainly not in the best interests of the children or society.  It is like the abominable argument that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder.  It surely is and it would be a lot better deterrent if the executions were done speedily after a fair trial where the guilty was condemned by the testimony of two or more witnesses.

On the other hand society is so corrupt that we may be beyond executing anyone since there is a greater chance that innocent ones will be executed. That does not set aside the argument of what ought to have been. Those who vote for homosexual marriage are helping society to demand children be educated that homosexuality is just another lifestyle.  Laws are beginning to pop us demanding just such a course.  It is discrimination to do otherwise.   :(  Very sad, especially when Christian join the band as it plays on.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Marelis on July 04, 2011, 01:00:46 PM
One problem with that argument is that is sidesteps the issue to make it one of religious persecution (forcing one's religious views on a minority), when in reality it is one of civil order and the preservation of a stable society.

History is on the side of those who wish to retain the historical institution of marriage as it has existed from the beginning.  It promotes a stable society by facilitating stable families (the current proclivity for easy divorce notwithstanding).  Societies that have stable families prosper.  A departure from the historical institution of marriage will retard civilization, not advance it.  Any new definition of marriage will lead to a chaotic situation.  Government will not have the means to meet all its obligations to all the new spouses created by this new law.  This reaches into many areas:  social security payments; disability; insurance; etc., etc.  It will open the proverbial Pandora's box and lead to many untended consequences.

I'm not a lawyer, an historian, or an orator, but I believe someone out there could stand before Congress and make a compelling argument for keeping the traditional institution of marriage intact--without even mentioning religion.

But I believe this will get worse before it gets better.  The "moral majority" will get pushed too far, and the backlash could be one of the catalysts that leads us down the road to the end of religious liberty.
Very good post, Wally.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on September 27, 2011, 02:44:17 PM
Separation of church and state is becoming more and more of an issue today.  In the last Republican presidential debate, Michele Bachmann was asked about it. Her answer was fairly good. But, the heart of the matter must be brought out.  It is not good enough to only give half an answer. We must hear the truth that there is to be a wall of separation between church and state. The state is not to inject itself into our relationship with God. The first four commandments are out of bounds. We need to hear that being taught in the church and in government.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: colporteur on September 27, 2011, 04:28:35 PM
Yes, it is fudging to say that to bring in a Sunday law under a secular front is not union of church and state. When it involves religious convictions and the commandments of God it is religious. It is really more than fudging it is outright violating the constitution not to mention the law of God.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on April 22, 2012, 09:35:54 PM
We have commented elsewhere on the developments in the Republican primary elections. Rick Santorum a staunch Catholic has poured contempt upon the statement made by John F Kennedy regarding his loyalty to the US Constitution rather than the papacy. And, knowing this, the Evangelicals remained silent and some even backed him. Amazing, but a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on August 30, 2012, 08:14:22 PM
In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Mitt Romney twice tonight promised to protect freedom of religion.  "I guarantee freedom of religion."
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Wally on August 31, 2012, 05:18:19 PM
We mustn't forget that politicians will say anything to get elected:  "Read my lips; no new taxes."  ::)  When the people demand Sunday laws, no president (or Congress) will refuse.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on August 31, 2012, 09:41:49 PM
Yes, when the wind blows, some men will see it and go with it to protect their position. Our job is to be able to differentiate between men with character and men without it. There are men who will do what they believe to be right no matter what. Look at their past experience. We have seen many that are just as Brother Wally says. Are there any who will stand up for what is right?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on September 14, 2012, 04:24:02 PM
In the  minds of many, including some Christians, separation of church and state translates into liberty of conscience in a very broad manner.  But, this is often too broadly taught.  How so?

The laws of a government are to be moral laws. If there is no restriction placed upon people's behavior, then we have anarchy. Ffew would agree with not having any restrictions on liberty. Even libertarians will agree at some point there needs to be law that restricts the freedom of people. The best example is that we have laws to keep people from killing one another. Now comes the difficulty in placing the line where it belong in regards to not only separation of church and state, but even the laws that govern a church. 

Let's take another example. In church, it is understood that one may have liberty of conscience in their personal life, but when it comes to church membership, there will be some doctrinal matters that one must accept and obey, or else one will be removed from church membership. Therefore, even in a Protestant church there is restriction placed in individual behaviour that some would object to. The line is to be drawn based upon principle, not based upon feelings or human wisdom.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Cop on September 16, 2012, 11:45:33 AM
Quote
In church, it is understood that one may have liberty of conscience in their personal life, but when it comes to church membership, there will be some doctrinal matters that one must accept and obey, or else one will be removed from church membership.

As you know, my Brother, I agree with this statement fully, but when was the last time that you have heard of this taking place within the SDA Church? I personally do know of it happening since the late 70's.

I recently read of a Muslim iman saying to Christians in Egypt about the anti-Muslim movie that is in the news, "If you do not openly condemn it, you are condoning it!" Do we keep silent about open sin in our churches out of fear of appearing unloving. Are we condoning sin by our silence?

"The greatest want of the world is the want of men,—men who will not be bought or sold; men who in their inmost souls are true and honest; men who do not fear to call sin by its right name; men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole; men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall."—Education, 57
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on September 16, 2012, 01:19:41 PM
Amen!!  It is sad to see that the voice of reproof has been silent for so long in the church. But, the call for revival and reformation is sounding though the church today. And, as I think of it, I am reminded that even though we did not hear it for twelve years, we did hear it in the preceding eight years. So much so that there was a hateful spirit developing in response. So God allowed the church to receive one who refused to call for revival. But, now, things have changed. You will be blessed to hear it more clearly now that you are back online with us.  Go to our homepage remnant-online.org and there you will see article after article revealing the change that is taking place.

So, getting back to separation of church and state, we see that there is need for moral laws being legislated by the state. Moral laws are those which are in harmony with God's laws. So, we may not say that God has no place in the laws of our land. That is not a correct understanding of the separation of church and state.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on February 19, 2015, 09:40:38 AM
What is the result when church and state unite? We have an example in the dark ages when kings bowed down to popes and the state was used to punish those who did not follow church doctrine. The President of the United States made reference to the Inquisition last week when comparing ISIS to it. He and many other religious and secular leaders have not yet identified the real problem. The president ought to have been the first to point out that America does not allow the state to punish those who refuse to worship God according to what a church dictates. The United States does not participate in what Islam teaches, a church state religion. Where is the voice of freedom? Why is there silence in regards to the foundation of Islam being at odds with the freedoms American value so much? Has the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights been thrown under the bus?

How long before we hear the truth proclaimed about the rights of the individual to worship according to conscience?
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Kaniela on February 19, 2015, 01:02:22 PM
Where is the voice of freedom? Why is there silence in regards to the foundation of Islam being at odds with the freedoms American value so much? Has the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights been thrown under the bus?

How long before we hear the truth proclaimed about the rights of the individual to worship according to conscience?

   As far as this Country goes, we may never hear it as before when this Country's leaders understood and stood by its Constitution as you said of a politician:
We have commented elsewhere on the developments in the Republican primary elections. Rick Santorum a staunch Catholic has poured contempt upon the statement made by John F Kennedy regarding his loyalty to the US Constitution rather than the papacy. And, knowing this, the Evangelicals remained silent and some even backed him. Amazing, but a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

   Yes it is an amazing fulfillment of Bible Prophecy. It is also known that some of the Judiciary's of the US Supreme Court are against Separation of Church and State.
   In light of the Three Angels Messages, we should at least be hearing it in our Churches.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on March 14, 2015, 08:57:18 AM
As we near the end, we know that the  issue of religious freedom will take center stage. The battle will be world-wide, but centered in the United States, the land of liberty. America was a Protestant nation as testified to by its tolerance of other religions. Liberty of conscience is not valued by many "other" religions. If we look at many Islamic nations we see that they persecute those who convert to another religion. This is anathema to Protestant America.

With the immigration to the United States of those who were not Protestant, there has been a lowering of the education  of the principles upon which America was founded. There is a strong hatred of the Constitution by some who would impose their worship upon all others. There is an attempt to remove free speech and to tear down the wall of separation between church and state. There is also a parallel movement to remove morality, Biblical truth, from the nation as witnessed by the Obama administration's success  in rejecting Bible morality and codifying immorality.

Fox news has published an article entitled  America is not a "Christian" nation. (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/03/05/america-is-not-christian-nation/?intcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obnetwork) It affords us an opportunity to better understand the battle we face which has now begun in earnest. The author of the article does not understand Bible truth, nor the Constitution of the United States. American citizen's rights  to discuss religion, including those that are opposed to first amendments rights, is seen as something evil in this article. He wrote "Anti-Muslim rhetoric has grown particularly loud, and has been heard in places as geographically and politically distant as California and North Dakota."  There is reason why there is a discussion about the religion of the Koran and the history of Islam. One only needs to consider how Islam conquered much of Arabia, Northern Africa, and portions of Europe. Americans have no desire to  become like Saudi Arabia or Iran. And, Muslims who want to live in the  U.S. are not at liberty  to instill a practice which attempts to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and implement a religion that would enslave citizens of the United States. All immigrants to the United States need to swear allegiance to the  Constitution or be denied citizenship. But, with the spread of immorality and the intense effort to overthrow the laws of the  land, we find that there is little concern for what immigrants believe or the character of those who cross over the U.S. border.

There is an article of a different nature that enlightens the ignorant on the true nature of the  Separation of Church and State. (http://abibleanswer.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=534:separation-of-church-and-state&catid=41:religious-freedom&Itemid=158) It too affords us an opportunity to become better educated in regards to the battle before us. We already have been warned that we are not at liberty to speak against some religions that would attempt to remove our religious liberty. One of the most powerful leaders in the world recently gave us  reason for concern when he  said if a friend "says a swear word against my mother, then a punch awaits him." "One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith." Islam, the Counterfeit Revealed (http://ymlp.com/zFnTya)

It is time that we, as a people, understand the issue that will bring persecution upon God's  church. We are granted a wonderful opportunity to teach the truth that America was founded as a Protestant nation. It is the  Protestant principle of liberty of conscience that enabled America to spread Bible truth and freedom around the world. Those days have ended and the United States of America is no longer a Protestant nation, but will become the tool that will now attempt  to bring the world in harmony with religious principles opposed to religious liberty.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on September 10, 2015, 09:05:10 AM
In light of my last message, it must be seen in the context of some appointed US Supreme Court justices being anti-Constitution. God has given to man the ability to reason, to consider the circumstances in which we live. Some of the justices are not only anti-Constitution, but highly immoral. Some Seventh-day Adventists consider the decisions made by the Supreme Court to be the law of the land and to be obeyed no matter what. Well....that reveals a lack  of understanding both Bible and Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. It also reveals a lack of understanding of the US Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers to protect liberty and morality. America was a Protestant nation, not an atheist nation. A Protestant nation  allows for freedom of worship, but not freedom to dictate how one  will worship God. A Protestant  nation has moral laws. To legislate immorality was never the intent of the Constitution nor the founding fathers.Today, when a lady goes to jail rather than agree to the marriage of homosexuals, as it pertains to her elected job, she is considered a hero by some and a law breaker by others.  It is for us to understand what God wants from us, not what the state demands from us.

How many church members who live in America have considered what they will do when an immoral and defiant US Supreme Court allows what an immoral Congress legislates, that the sun day is sacred and one cannot work on that holy day?   Today, an immoral and defiant Court has ruled that a Congressional law defining marriage is contrary to the US Constitution. It is time that church members for their own sake understand the significance of what is transpiring before our eyes. It may be that  the County Clerk in Kentucky is not consecrated and following the leading of God, but I would not want to come to that conclusion  when she may be doing just what God would have me do if I were in her shoes. The Sunday is not the only issue that will be a religious matter revealing the fall of a nation and thus the approaching doom awaiting that nation and the nations of the world.

At  some  point, we need to understand things have changed. America is not the bright shining land of liberty it  once was. The  stone carved without hands will now shine brightly amid the moral decay of the nations of this world.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on September 29, 2015, 12:25:39 AM
Yesterday, CNN's Jake Tapper attacked Dr. Ben Carson to the  point where Carson's campaign manager halted the interview. The subject was heated over Dr. Carson's explanation  that those who were unwilling to reject some of the major tenants of Islam ought not become the President of the United States. He said he did not think Islam was consistent  with the  US  Constitution.   Interview (http://remnant-online.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=596:dr-carson-attacked-by-cnns-jake-tapper&catid=47:religious-liberty&Itemid=162)
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: colporteur on September 29, 2015, 02:19:13 PM
Do you notice more of a trend for people to become intolerant with those who stand up for morality ?  They want tolerance but only tolerance of immorality. When it comes to morality they are  intolerant even of verbal expression.
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on September 30, 2015, 10:10:55 AM
Yes, cp.  They are coming out on this Muslim question.  Last night a Russian "expert" who teaches at a couple of "prestigious" schools of "higher education" attacked Dr. Carson. He said that we might be having more terrorism in America if Carson keeps up with his position statement on Muslims. This came out of nowhere when he was being interviewed  on what Putin was up to. It was rather shocking to here this, but it illustrates exactly what you are saying, and how ignorant many of these who teach at so called institutions of "higher education".
Title: Re: Separation of Church and State
Post by: Richard Myers on November 01, 2017, 08:19:40 AM
The Muslim religion does not separate church from state, neither does Roman Catholicism. Michael Hasel presents a talk on the "Sea Beast" Today.