Monday, August 24, 2009

What Do You Think About This?

I am actually writing this Sunday morning. The question occured to me while watching Fox News. Alisyn Camerota is moderating a debate between Bill Press a syndicated talk show host, Rick Santorum (R, PA) former Senator, and Fr Jonathan Morris a Catholic priest on Barack Obama's call for religious leaders to support health reform from the pulpit.

The debate itself was not a very good one partly because Camerota is a light weight in my opinion and could not really keep the men focused. It did get me thinking though about the fact that the Democrat's have historically been strong supporters of separation of church and state (what the debate on Fox was actually supposed to be about).

So what do you think about: Separation of church and state? When if ever, is it justified to use religion like this? Is there hypocrisy here on the part of Obama for doing this on an issue he supports? Do you think this invites clergy who do not support reform to use their pulpit to attack the bill? Is it okay to attack the reform if it is not okay to support it? Will the Democrats raise a fuss about attacks while accepting support?

What do you think about this.

11 comments:

LASunsett said...

//So what do you think about: Separation of church and state? //

I would say Christ had an opinion on it.

Mt.22:16-21

//16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17T Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
//

In my mind, that's where church and state were properly separated.

Bags said...

Separation of church and state is meant to protect the church not the state. The fact that our currencly and founding documents refer to God shows that our forefathers had no problem with religion and government.

The phrasing is freedom of religion not freedom from religion. using this phrase to make our country secular is crap.

That being said, Obama acted "stupidly" in calling on religiuos leaders to push his agenda.

shoprat said...

A theocracy is when church authorities have the final say over all others. When religion influences public policy that's people voting their beliefs. It's not theocracy when people vote as they believe and people are not required to join or be part of a religion.

Separation of Church and State is a must because it dilutes power and keeps it from concentrating. Separation of right and wrong from law in the name of separation of church and state is another matter.

I would like to see the church, the state, and the economy all separated but influencing each other.

Chuck said...

LA, well put


Bags,

Separation of church and state is meant to protect the church not the state.

Dead on. This is lost on most proponents of the seperation of church and state.

Shoprat, agreed. People on the left get bent when a Christian votes with their values or there are "too many Christians on a school board", etc. This is not what the framers were going for with freedom of religion

MK said...

Leftists only want to separate church from state when the church is a hinderance to their nefarious agenda. If they can corrupt the church and get them onboard their morally bankrupt wagon, leftists will fall over themselves to use the church.

I hope the churches to tell hussein to shove off.

da patriot said...

The entire notion that the first amendment was intended establish a complete separation of church and state is completely false. It had been common practice in the colonies to favor one religious sect over another, even to the extent of providing finacial support for favored chuches and religious schools. It was considered acceptable and proper.

The establihment clause was placed in the Bill of Rights to prevent the Federal Government from interfering with that practice.
It was actually a states rights issue.

Source: Fighting for Liberty and Virtue, pg. 200-201

Chuck said...

MK, this is a long standing irony with Democrats. They are dead set against religion being injected in government except at election time, then it's okay for them to campaign at the churches and seek the clergy's support. No hypocrisy to see here, move along.

Da Patriot, agreed and thanks for the clarification. I wasn't fully aware of the local support for churches

Z said...

"Is there hypocrisy?"

Um...we can't allow church and state, and Bush was slammed for appearing at anything churchy, but there were Democrat candidates appearing in the campaign IN CHURCHES? naaa.. no hypocrisy!

On this subject? They don't want church in state but, if it can help their agenda? NO PROBLEM! No hypocrisy! :-)

Chuck said...

No irony either, right Z?

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget that the phrase"A wall of seperation between church and state" came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist's. Alot of us (especially democrats)think "sep.of ch&st" is in the constitution. It is not. It is best to become informed on the issue & phrase then you will never be argued down by a liberal. da patriot by far had it right that this is a states issue. Constitutionally a state could have a referendum to have a state religion. I think we all realize that wouldn't happen but it legally could.

Chuck said...

Anon, thanks for stopping by although I wish you would leave a name. I agree that it is not in the Constitution. I do think it is a stretch that a state could set up a religion, this is the wording:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

While one could split hairs and say it does say "Congress" specifically, I would think any court would interpret this as 'the government'. Interesting take on it though.