|
| Separation of Church and State? |
|
| |
Why, if we believe in separation of church and state, do we have blue laws at all, which impose a puritanical Sunday rest even upon Christians who don't believe that resting on that day is mandatory? How do Saturday Sabbatarian churches feel about Sunday churches forcing their day upon them? Is that freedom of religion or state imposed Sunday Sabbatarian religion?
Why in America and Australia, if we believe in separation of church and state, do pastors register to become an authority of the state to perform marriages? Why in Europe where church and state are not always separated, do people then have two separate state and church marriage ceremonies?
Hmmm! Just thought I'd ask... |
|
| To add a comment to "Separation of Church and State?" |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| February 21, 2008 |
 |
|
|
A great question, Grant - and one that deserves some input. My thoughts:
Aside from the historic perspective of attempting to infuse religious thought into life though political process (do you call that hubris or arrogance?) the reason is application. The state is the official body that grants licenses for marriage (and dogs and drivers). Pastors apply for the authority to act as agents for the state to save time for the applicants. And, as long as we tolerate religion in the American/Australian societies, it makes sense to allow that.
In Europe where the church/state coexists the church is subjugated to following the rules of the state. As such "church" is not recognized as a valid method of marriage. Since the state controls both aspects, it divides responsibility rather than combine it. Also, because the state will sanction "unions" other than a man and wife, the church should separate itself from the requirement to perform those services of the state.
On the other hand, I agree with you on the blue laws. If the government is just a caretaker of our lives, why should it matter? There is also respect for traditions in America and Australia - hence Saturday and Sunday for rest is valid. Emotionally, as a society we need that too. So, that makes sense. Anything that helps the overall mental and emotional health of society should be looked at carefully by the state. Sometimes that may differ from Christian values since a non-Christian would be stressed is forced to follow spiritual practices. thus, the state needs to let certain things just happen.
We need to continue to be the light and show it. Unlike the Muslim concept, there can be no Christian theocracy until this life and this earth have passed away. |
|
|
| February 22, 2008 |
|
|
|
| I quite agree. There are those who would want Australia and America to return to a Christian form of government, we with our titular head of state as head of the church, and America with its head of state and congress passing Christian laws. I certainly believe we need Christian influence in government. However, Europe, Massachusetts and some other places have had Christian governments and look at the persecution that resulted. Salem witch trials, burnings at stakes, our flogging parson as judge and preacher in colonial days, beheadings in England, etc. No thanks! Christians are just as bad at government as pagans. |
|
|
| February 23, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Amen! |
|
|
Follow this blog
