Government Church of Sweden: A Lesson for Church/State Separation
There is a controversy in Sweden over a piece of art. The art depicts a gay Adam and lesbian Eve. An explanation of the art explains why it is consistent with the Bible. The painting is hung in a Swedish Lutheran Church, the government's denomination.
Many branches of conservative Christians work hard to put their religious views into law. When they do this they are coming close to establishing a state church. It is often pointed out to such groups, including the largest denominations, Catholics and Southern Baptists, that when government starts advocating religious views it may come to advocate views the opposite of yours.
Abortion is one of these religious ideas some religious groups want government to ban. If government can ban abortion it can also require abortion. Political winds do often change.
The same is true of gay marriage. All the efforts to make gay marriage illegal have failed. Had government entered that issue conservative people may have found out too late it turned on them.
Pictures of gay people coverting around the Garden of Eden in a government run church is an example of political whims that come along. I don't see anything wrong with it myself but it would be better if the church was a private one not under the thumb of government.
The last time I or any Catholic I know advocated for a Federal or State religion was ... never. Straw men get blown down by the flimsiest of arguments.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental problem with a Federal/State religion, which can be overcome in an ideal situation, is that the government encompasses an inordinately large number of non-religious issues such as paving roads, creating parks, providing for a common defense, establishing and running courts, etc.
Our founders had it right when the First Amendment passed. That meaning has been bastardized by people who claim a false separation of Church and State. Like a heart valve, flow is only meant to go in one direction. The State shall respect religion and not meddle in its affairs. The prohibition of religion participating in government is not present. Anyone and any organization may participate in government; at no less or no greater power than any other person or organization.
Matt; re. "Separation of church and state" When the corporate Church gets involved in political matters, it looses it's compass. Let me remind you of 1 Cor. 2;2 ; "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. THAT IS THE COMPASS. Most if not all churches have members of various political persuasions. When the church gets involved in politics,, personal motives cause divisions, and the compass looses.
DeleteThat being said, there is nothing to say individual members on their own, as citizens and Christians should not become involved, but not in the name of a particular church denomination, or pulpit.
Herein lies the correct separation of church and state.
When a church start politicking, the politicking can and will come back at the church and bite you in the rear end. That becomes a two way street. Not from fear, but from the true mission of the Church.
We all know the church of Rome has been heavily involved in politics for centuries, excercising authority beyond that of a church, much to it's discredit, and negating the compass of the Gospel. (see again 1 Cor 2;2 in case you have forgotten the Gospel.)
Pray tell, what matters are political and which are religious? Create a Venn diagram of the two. Tell me, is there any common area, i.e. intersection of the two? I claim there is an intersection.
DeleteAt this time in history, there is not a single Christian theocracy in the world. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Are there any Islam theocracies in the world?
You just don't get it.
Delete@ 6;34; Just a carryover of political activism of the 1600's and earlier, ----and later.
DeletePower and authority rather than the attraction of the Gospel.
Force them, not compel them. More carryover.
Matt "Straw men get blown down by the flimsiest of arguments."
ReplyDeleteThe strange notion that one fertilized cell is a human being and must be protected by the government is a religious idea. Religious organizations like the Catholic church want laws protecting this one cell. That is inserting the religious idea into government. You don't seem to understand that once invited in the government may not leave religion alone and require abortions.
Again, denying the scientific fact of biology is not a smart defense of science.
Delete(1) The undeniable scientific fact is that human reproductive biology starts with the fertilization of a female egg by a male sperm.
(2) Given the usual and ordinary resources of growth in the womb of the mother, the "fertilized egg" will, in 9 months, result in the birth of human being.
(3) At no time in the pregnancy is the fertilized life anything but human and growing. In that respect, the person is no different than transition from birth to 9 months old.
(4) Abortion is the murder of the innocent human being (it isn't a cat, dog, hamster or rabbit) which is alive and growing. If it weren't alive, there would be no need to kill it. One would just remove it surgically or allow it to be absorbed by the woman's body.
No one is going to prosecute a woman for a stillbirth or failed pregnancy.
So, in this case, there is no difference in the religious view and scientific view of conception and birth. In religion, we speak of the soul created at conception by God. The child is made in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, it is worthy of protection and defense.
I'm willing to let my religious beliefs enacted into law if only to protect one person against another. You do the same when you advocate for laws you like. You still believe in laws against murder and theft, correct? If the government ever does require abortions, people like me will resist. Your arguments are as straw men blowing in the wind.
I'm quite sure that you won't post these remarks but you may at least read them. So I'll make the effort anyway. You get yourself all lathered up, fearing that some official entity, whether the Congress, the Supreme Court and/or the President might impose on the US what you call a Christian theocracy. That frightening prospect, all because nutty prolife people want to provide legal protection for fertilized human cells. Abortion, you say, is a religious issue (religious as defined by you and your friends). Response: I think that it's time to put that concern in reverse. As in the dangers posed to religion by atheist "humanists" who have attempted to conform religious institutions to their "religion", As in mandating abortion coverage in health insurance policies; requiring the Little Sisters of the Poor to take policies requiring contraception coverage; limiting church participation in politics, in church hiring and firing policies; etc. Finally there is legitimate concern regarding future attacks on religion should secular humanists get further control of the levers of government. viz: mandating female and homosexual clergy, taxation of religious institutions ( with religion defined by the government); with Christianity (but not Islam or Satanism) defined as a "hate" organization. In other words, look in the mirror: you might then figure out that the enemy may be you, not those pro-abortion zealots. mark anthony
DeleteWell stated, Unknown.
DeleteJon enjoys creating the big, terrible monster he calls conservative Christianity. The truth is vastly different than Jon's fairy tales.
sorry not those pro-life zealots.
ReplyDelete