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?

[Cathar1950]

Given what many make it sounds like they are doing pretty well for themselves.
I wonder what someone making minimum wage thinks of 40 to 60 thousand a year?
I can get a minister licence for free on the internet. Of course they want $75 for the kit.

[theleftone]

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.

Okay, so what am I failing to grasp about this?

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.

How so?

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?

And which passage would that be? And how do we know you have performed proper exegesis on it?

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.

What evidence do you have that the primary motivation 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.

I don't know anything about them, so I couldn't say make any kind of informed statement.

(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?

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

This would be shifting the burden proof. You made the claim. You have to support. So, I ask again. Do you have any evidence the Didache was rejected for the reason noted above?

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".

First, you have not defined what a "faulty baptism" is. Second, you have not support the claim that a "faulty baptism" can result in "eternal suffering." Third, you have neglected to provide evidence for the claim that "faulty baptisms" cause the eternal suffering of "millions." Fourth, if my religion revolves around money then please explain to me why I volunteer rather than accept payment. If you mean Christianity in general, then please show us where the primary motivation of most ministers, much less most Christians (i.e., ministers and laymen) are motivated by the "financial rewards" they receive for their work.

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.

Prove it.

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?

You see, this is not the problem. I have no problem with you wanting to test the claims of the faith. Do it if you so desire. What I have a problem with is your wanting to use the government to do so. You want to impose regulations on faith, thereby establishing a state religion. I do not support a state religion, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, secular, or any other faith.

And yes, I do believe my faith. However, since you seem insistent that it is all about money how about you put the numbers and evidence on the table.

[juliod]

Okay, so what am I failing to grasp about this?

That "establishment" mean the adoption of an official religion (like the anglican church). The Constitution does not prohibit the regulation of religion when necessary.

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.

How so?

Churches are a fee-for-service industry. You give them money, they perform various rites. Simple.

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

And which passage would that be?

The ideal of holy poverty is given in many places in the New Testement. But that's not germain to the issue here.

And how do we know you have performed proper exegesis on it?

Because I am always right about everything.

What evidence do you have that the primary motivation of Christian churches is to collect money?

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153_10.asp

I don't know anything about them, so I couldn't say make any kind of informed statement.

You don't need to. I've already told you what you would say about them.

This would be shifting the burden proof. You made the claim. You have to support. So, I ask again. Do you have any evidence the Didache was rejected for the reason noted above?

Does it matter? I made the claim that the Didache shows the original christian attitude to preachers and money. You're using a red herring to avoid the obvious implications for church wealth.

First, you have not defined what a "faulty baptism" is. Second, you have not support the claim that a "faulty baptism" can result in "eternal suffering." Third, you have neglected to provide evidence for the claim that "faulty baptisms" cause the eternal suffering of "millions."

You must be some sort of liberal christian that doesn't believe in baptism. Many christians think it is your sort of doctrine that most be stopped.

Fourth, if my religion revolves around money then please explain to me why I volunteer rather than accept payment.

It's part of your payment (sorry, "offering") that increases the wealth of your church. Your volunteer work has an actual cash value.

If you mean Christianity in general, then please show us where the primary motivation of most ministers, much less most Christians (i.e., ministers and laymen) are motivated by the "financial rewards" they receive for their work.

I have yet to visit a chruch that does not collect money every service. I have yet to see a christian (cleric or layman) who follows Jesus' teachings about giving their wealth to the poor.

I have no problem with you wanting to test the claims of the faith. Do it if you so desire. What I have a problem with is your wanting to use the government to do so. You want to impose regulations on faith, thereby establishing a state religion.

What you really mean is that unlike an electrician, plumber, or beautician, religious services are all bogus (like TV psychics, astrologers, and dowsers) and so could not possibly be required to demonstrate competance at thier own claims.

DanZ

[micatala]

Churches are a fee-for-service industry. You give them money, they perform various rites. Simple.

Simply wrong, would be a more apt description of this statement.

Is the Red Cross a fee for service industry? Are other charities fee for service industries?

Is my family a fee for service industry? My wife and I put a lot of resources towards each other and our children. We gain happiness and joy from each other. Are you saying that this is a 'fee for service' and suggesting that the government should test whether the services I receive are 'safe and effective' before allowing me to use my resources in this way?

It seems to me you are intent on creating a straw-man caricature of religion so as to more easily abuse it. How many of those who practice or follow a religion would consider it a 'fee for service industry?' Most that I know consider their church a sort of 'extended family' or 'community of choice'. The resources they put towards the support of the church are akin to the resources, both money and time, that parents put towards the support of the family. Why would anyone replace this view of church with the skewed and unrealistic one you present here?

[Cathar1950]

Maybe mega-churches and TV evangelists need to be taken to court and admit they are entertainment like they did with professional wrestling.
If money changes hands they should be taxed. Unless the church is so poor that it would be a burden.
The average income from Social Security was $11688 in Michigan.
The median income of households in Michigan was $43448.
That still seems lower then Ministers.

[micatala]

The average income from Social Security was $11688 in Michigan.
The median income of households in Michigan was $43448.
That still seems lower then Ministers.

Point taken. I would grant that the statistics I cited do not show that ministers are any kind of 'impoverished class.'

However, I think it is also fair to say they are far from rich, on the average.

I would also say in making comparisons that it might be appropriate to compare ministers to others of similar educational background. While the 'credentialing' of ministers varies denomination to denomination, and some churches are led by individuals with little or no formal education, I would suggest that ministers typically have an education equivalent to a masters degree, and quite a few the equivalent of a Ph.D. To compare incomes for such individuals with these credentials to someone with an intermittent work history, or living off social security, is in some sense not an appropriate comparison.

[theleftone]

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.

Okay, so what am I failing to grasp about this?

That "establishment" mean the adoption of an official religion (like the anglican church). The Constitution does not prohibit the regulation of religion when necessary.[/quote]
The regulation of religion results in an establishment of religion because the state would be dictating to them how they may or may not practice their religion.

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.

How so?

Churches are a fee-for-service industry. You give them money, they perform various rites. Simple.

I second micatala's objection.

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

And which passage would that be?

The ideal of holy poverty is given in many places in the New Testement. But that's not germain to the issue here.

But it is, or you would not have brought it up in the first place. So, again, what "ideal of holy poverty?" Where do you obtain this? How do you establish this? And where is it commanded?

And how do we know you have performed proper exegesis on it?

Because I am always right about everything.

So, show me.

What evidence do you have that the primary motivation of Christian churches is to collect money?

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153_10.asp

1. Catholic charities
2. Simply having money is not proof that their primary motivation is to collect money. So, again, you have not supported your point.
3. Even if we assume their primary motivation is to collect money, you have only dealt with one of thousands of Christian churches. Thus, to imply it would be the model for all Christian churches would be the fallacy of hasty generalization.

I don't know anything about them, so I couldn't say make any kind of informed statement.

You don't need to. I've already told you what you would say about them.

Shamgar? Is that you?

This would be shifting the burden proof. You made the claim. You have to support. So, I ask again. Do you have any evidence the Didache was rejected for the reason noted above?

Does it matter? I made the claim that the Didache shows the original christian attitude to preachers and money. You're using a red herring to avoid the obvious implications for church wealth.

You further implied that this is the reason why it was rejected as canonical. Thus, my demand that you support this point is not a red herring.

First, you have not defined what a "faulty baptism" is. Second, you have not support the claim that a "faulty baptism" can result in "eternal suffering." Third, you have neglected to provide evidence for the claim that "faulty baptisms" cause the eternal suffering of "millions."

You must be some sort of liberal christian that doesn't believe in baptism. Many christians think it is your sort of doctrine that most be stopped.

My questions stand unanswered.

Fourth, if my religion revolves around money then please explain to me why I volunteer rather than accept payment.

It's part of your payment (sorry, "offering") that increases the wealth of your church. Your volunteer work has an actual cash value.

Really? How is my volunteering increasing the wealth of the church? While we're at, I also volunteer at the local natural history museum. If my volunteering at my church increases its wealth, then it could reasonable follow that my volunteer work there also increases their wealth. So, are you also opposed to my volunteering and increasing the wealth of a natural history museum?

If you mean Christianity in general, then please show us where the primary motivation of most ministers, much less most Christians (i.e., ministers and laymen) are motivated by the "financial rewards" they receive for their work.

I have yet to visit a chruch that does not collect money every service. I have yet to see a christian (cleric or layman) who follows Jesus' teachings about giving their wealth to the poor.

First, the simple act of collecting money does not prove it is their primary motivation to gather wealth. Second, you have not supported your argument that Jesus said Christians must give their full wealth to the poor. Care to support your theological argument on Christ and wealth?

I have no problem with you wanting to test the claims of the faith. Do it if you so desire. What I have a problem with is your wanting to use the government to do so. You want to impose regulations on faith, thereby establishing a state religion.

What you really mean is that unlike an electrician, plumber, or beautician, religious services are all bogus (like TV psychics, astrologers, and dowsers) and so could not possibly be required to demonstrate competance at thier own claims.

Where did I say this? That's right. I didn't. You're putting words in my mouth.

[theleftone]

If money changes hands they should be taxed. Unless the church is so poor that it would be a burden.

Do you support taxing other organizations which are capable of obtaining non-profit status? (i.e., schools, museums, scientific organizations, other charities, etc.)

The average income from Social Security was $11688 in Michigan. The median income of households in Michigan was $43448. That still seems lower then Ministers.

How does education factor in here? I think this should be a consideration because in most mainline denominations, it's required for ministers to hold a Master of Divinity degree (90 graduate hours) before they can be ordained. That's a significant amount of graduate education. It's almost the equivalent of three master's degrees in other fields.

Of course, I realize no all ministers host an M.Div. or even a bachelor's degree. But I think simply taking the median income and comparing that is too simplistic.

[Cathar1950]

Do you support taxing other organizations which are capable of obtaining non-profit status? (i.e., schools, museums, scientific organizations, other charities, etc.)

Not really, I just felt like being a prick.
If they have enough to support politics then they should be taxed.
I am against big religion. I like community churches..
Power and money corrupts.
If they are using there money for the poor I am all for it.
I live in an apartment and I have a church below me in my landlord’s office that meets each week. I don't mind and I enjoy the music. It is like a gentle alarm clock.
The sermons are a little loud but I keep the TV down so it doesn't bother them. I have gone to church and was raised in churches most of my life. I prefer them downstairs.
I also know many ministers don't go to college and I attended a Mennonite Community church for many years. They had no minister and the service was shared. Most had at lest Masters degrees. I still have a great deal of respect for them even if I find then a little too biblical for my taste. I also have problems with a divine Jesus and a blood sacrifice.
I see the love God and others the whole law with the proper focus on loving others as the only way to love God besides gardening. I have been to churches where I heard the minister pray for a sick baby and ask forgiveness for anything the parents may have done that made the baby sick with some little unknown sin. I see many exploited and mentally raped by religion.
I prefer education reason and persuasion in a community spirit and sympathy.
Often religion is not placed under the scrutiny of reason and compassion.
So I can see people’s beef.

[theleftone]

So I can see people’s beef.

I agree. What bothers me is when people have a beef and it leads to overstatement and generalizations which don't hold up. Interestingly enough, my opinion and yours are quite similar aside from the theological differences.