Faith & Politics

[theleftone]

The issue of separation of church and state is one which plagues our generation. There are those from all sides seeking to prevent and incorporate their faith into laws. It has been suggested by some that people should keep their faith private and out of politics. Hence, upholding separation of church and state. This brings me to my question.

Question for debate: How can a person of faith (or lack thereof) practically separate their faith, keeping it private, without allowing it to become intertwined with their politics?

I would love to support separation of church and state because like many others, I don't want to give another individual the opportunity to impose his or her faith on me via legislation. Yet, practically, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to separate my "private" life from my "public" life (i.e., political life). My faith defines who I am, at least in part. It is a core element of my being, and simply cannot be turned on and off with the flick of a switch. It is a filter through which much of my thought flows, and hence my political views are shaped. Beyond this, even where there are "neutral" arguments for/against a given behavior exists (if such a thing can exist), I often find myself basing my position(s) on religious driven arguments.

So, how does one who would like to support separation of church and state, but finds their thought life intertwined with their faith, support and practically live such an idea out without becoming dishonest, delusional, unknowingly inconsistent, or nominal?

[McCulloch]

No one should be allowed to take money from people for the provision of religious rites unless they can show that their implementation of these rites is effective.

Perhaps there should be a disclaimer

The consequences of a faulty baptism, for example, is eternal suffering agony. This is a hundred billions times worse than the worst possible outcome of medical malpractise. Yet we require mere doctors to achieve and maintain a professional licence. We should require clerics to achieve standards proportionately higher. There should be strict laws against performing baptisms unless you can show that the ones you perform work. By contrast a liver transplant is a trivial operation. Right?

Many religions teach that it is the intent of the recipient of the rite rather than the qualifications of the administrator that matters. For instance, if you get married and subsequently find out that the minister who officiated at the wedding was not authorized to do so, you are still married.
BTW, the consequences of a faulty baptism are the same as the consequences of a properly done baptism. Wetness.

[Cathar1950]

Hey Dan you are messing with a multi-million(billion?) dollar industry.
Maybe they should be paid when the job is finished not by the hour.

Marriage is a little more difficult to undo then wetness.
One costs an arm and a leg the other just requires a towel.

[theleftone]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Juliod,

What you suggest isn't feasible short of revoking the First Amendment. Though, it should be noted most major denominations have some requirements in place for formal education.

[Cathar1950]

If they are passing money around they should be taxed.
A dipper tax?

[juliod]

What you suggest isn't feasible short of revoking the First Amendment.

What do you mean? The standard is "free excercise". What part of "free" don't you understand? If you are taking money from people, you are running a business, not a religion.

I see no support in the teachings of Jesus for the establishment of massive, super-rich, hierachical organizations. (Ever read the Didache? It tells you what it means if a preacher asks for money. One need hardly ask why the Didache was ejected from the christian canon.)

it should be noted most major denominations have some requirements in place for formal education.

But how do we know that thier rites are correct? Don't you care about the millions of people who might be condemned to hell because they don't have the right sort of preparation?

For every important profession it is essential that mechanisms are in place to remove and/or punish the incompetant or criminal. By this standard, clerics are less important than general contractors.

DanZ

[theleftone]

What you suggest isn't feasible short of revoking the First Amendment.

What do you mean? The standard is "free excercise". What part of "free" don't you understand?

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" don't you understand?

If you are taking money from people, you are running a business, not a religion.

This is incorrect. The goal of a business is financial gain. The goal of a consumer is to obtain a product and/or service. The goal of the Church is to live out the faith presented in Scripture. The goal of the church member giving money to the Church is to further along the Church's mission. The motivation is what differentiates a religious organization from a business.

(Ever read the Didache? It tells you what it means if a preacher asks for money. One need hardly ask why the Didache was ejected from the christian canon.)

Do you have any evidence it was rejected for this reason, or are you merely speculating?

it should be noted most major denominations have some requirements in place for formal education.

But how do we know that thier rites are correct? Don't you care about the millions of people who might be condemned to hell because they don't have the right sort of preparation?

I do care, but legislation to impose a standard of conduct on ministers would be Congress establishing a religion.

For every important profession it is essential that mechanisms are in place to remove and/or punish the incompetant or criminal. By this standard, clerics are less important than general contractors.

The difference between general contractors, doctors, lawyers, etc. is that these are all secular professions, not religious. Thus, imposing a standard of conduct on them does not violate the First Amendment.

[micatala]

What do you mean? The standard is "free excercise". What part of "free" don't you understand? If you are taking money from people, you are running a business, not a religion.

I considered comparing this to some of the word abuse engaged in by the institigator of the Bones of Contention thread, but then thought better of it.

If you are taking money from people, you are running a business, not a religion.

Is the Red Cross a 'business'? Is a homeless shelter a business?

I see no support in the teachings of Jesus for the establishment of massive, super-rich, hierachical organizations.

I would agree. Do you have any idea how many churches are 'super-rich?' Most churches I know are quite low budget operations. Most pastors I know make a very modest income, if that, although I should say I live in an area where average salaries overall are on the very low end for the U.S.

Here is some actual data.

A typical Associate Pastor working in the United States earns a median base salary of $56,137, according to our analysis of data reported by corporate HR departments. Half of the people in this job earn between $47,060 and $65,223.

Cerainly adequate, but clearly there are not a lot of people getting rich running churches.

The consequences of a faulty baptism, for example, is eternal suffering agony.

Can you list any churches or denominations who would hold such a view? Certainly there are some denominations who believe you must be water-baptized, but I have never heard of one that even defines a 'faulty' baptism.

[McCulloch]

The consequences of a faulty baptism, for example, is eternal suffering agony.

Can you list any churches or denominations who would hold such a view? Certainly there are some denominations who believe you must be water-baptized, but I have never heard of one that even defines a 'faulty' baptism.

There are branches of the churches of Christ which teach this. To them a faulty baptism is one which is not immersion of a repentant believer and one which is done for the wrong reasons.

...
The New Testament plainly teaches that accountable people have to be baptized into Christ in order to have their sins remitted. Have you been baptized for the remission of sins? "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

...Only when we submit to baptism as the Lord has commanded, that is for the remission of sins to be saved, do we show our faith in the Lord. Only then will He save us.
Man today has a sin problem. It is our sins that separate us from God. We are to repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins. This is God's instruction on how we solve our sin problem. In the above verse, when Peter told them to "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins," whatever repentance is for in that verse, baptism is for the same reason. Repent and be baptized are joined by the coordinating conjunction and, which joins words of equal grammatical importance. Certainly Acts 2:38 does not teach that lost people are to repent because they have already received forgiveness of their sins. Neither does it teach that lost people are to be baptized because their sins are already forgiven. Satan would like you to believe that baptism has nothing to do with the forgiveness of your sins. Have you been baptized for the remission of your sins? Again, the choice is yours; either believe what God has said and be saved, or believe what men say and you will continue to be lost. We only have two choices, and the choice that we make will have eternal consequences. But please make the right choice. ...
According to the Bible, it is at the point of baptism, that we pass from an unsaved state into a saved state.
...

[juliod]

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" don't you understand?

The part where you fail to grasp what "establishment" means.

The goal of a business is financial gain. The goal of a consumer is to obtain a product and/or service.

Sounds like what churches are doing.

The goal of the Church is to live out the faith presented in Scripture.

You mean the scripture calling for poverty and the giving away of all wealth? Or do you have a different scripture?

The goal of the church member giving money to the Church is to further along the Church's mission. The motivation is what differentiates a religious organization from a business.

But, as far as I can tell, the business of christian churches is to collect money. Except that cult knowmn as the Christadelphians, who refuse to have paid clergy or own buildings. But then, you'll tell me they aren't christians.

Do you have any evidence it was rejected for this reason, or are you merely speculating?

Do you have reason to doubt the authenticity of an early christian doctrine that says a preacher who takes money from christians is false?

I do care, but legislation to impose a standard of conduct on ministers would be Congress establishing a religion.

a) No it wouldn't.

b) You put an oblique reference in our constitution above eternal suffering of millions of people? That's absurd. It seems your religion really does revolve around money, not "saving souls".

The difference between general contractors, doctors, lawyers, etc. is that these are all secular professions, not religious

So the work of doctors, lawyers, etc, is billions and billions of times less important than clerics.

If religious officiating really is important, I don't understand why you object to a requirement that it be shown to work. You do really believe it, don't you? It's not just a scam, isn't it?

DanZ

[juliod]

Is the Red Cross a 'business'? Is a homeless shelter a business?

Well, perhaps not. But I note that real charities have to be able to prove they really are charities.

But in any case, the Red Cross and a local shelter would have no difficulty in showing that their services are "safe and effective". Religious people go hysterical at this standard because they know (deep down) that religion is neither.

DanZ