That is not my understanding of the separation of church and state.  Rather, I believe that many of the early settlers of what is now the US came fleeing religious persecution.  They tried to make sure that the state had no official religion, but that all people were free to follow the religion of their choice.  It had nothing to do with protecting the state from the church, but rather in protecting the church from the state.  Religious people have the right (some of us would say that we have the responsibility) of confronting the government if we think there is an issue (like not caring for the most vulnerable among us). 

Separation of church and state can be a good thing, depending on the religion. One only has to look, however, at the fanatical actions of the Middle East where mosque and politics are the same to see it can be dangerous.


I don't, however, believe that politics and spiritual motives should be separated, since without the sincerity and honest motives of "true" spirit then the political machine can be soulless and lacking empathy.

I think Seeler is right--the Americans were trying to avoid what was called the "established church" concept in England.

Separation of Church and state is to protect the church from an established church.  It is also a concept that has not nearly the historical place in Canada as it does in the US.  In the US it was to protect religious freedom, not surprising since many people came to the colonies to escape persecution due to their religious affiliation.

In teh Canadian colonies however, there was an established church (Anglican) which had the benefit of land grants.

Many societies of the global South have political-religious ideologies that are close to those of the European medieval world, in which church and state were not separated. In many African communities, Christian clergy lead political life. The 17^th century was the last time this kind of situation occurred in the North.

Churches who are exercising political power are just one step away from demanding an exclusive right to that power, perhaps within a theocratic Christian state. That claim to power can seriously provoke non-Christian groups, as well as denominations that feel they are left out of the newly created order. Such provocation is sometimes intentional.

Some African states have already declared themselves Christian societies despite having complex religious compositions. Zambia did so in 1991. Ivory Coast regimes have sponsored Christian churches, organizations, and activities even though there are fewer Christians there than Muslims.

Christian nations might fight against Islamic governments in Sudan and Nigeria by setting into law their own religion. The separation of church and state is foreign to Africans, whose states follow models given by former European colonial powers. We may see more Christian states, in a Staatskirch (European: a state in which one denomination has the central role).

Constitutionalism, democracy, and fairness may not be concerns of these new Christian states who might tell churches that they want to form a morally Christian society, all the while just using them in trade for favoured status as propaganda agents to preach public adherence to government.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

Source:  

• Jenkins, P. (2011). The next christendom: The coming of global christianity: Third edition, New York, Oxford University Press, Inc. kindle edition.

MC - it seems to me that a Baptist pastor was very much involved in politics in Saskatchewan and federally a few decades ago.    I wish that we could claim he was UCC but facts are facts.

Having just returned from a week-long seminar on religion and politics, I certainly am glad that the two aren't separate in Canada.  After all, we follow Jesus who was very political in his protests against some of the practices of the government and the officials of the temple.   When people in the early church made the claim "Jesus is Lord" they were making a political statement.   "Jesus is Lord, and not Caesar."

Separation of church and statew is NOT abotu keeping religious convictions out of one's personal politics.  Never has been.  It is about having no church that is established/given special status/supported by the state.  Religion and politics (for better or worse) have always been inextricablyt linked.

politics by people without religious convictions can be pretty hairy. think of Stalin, Mao.

Obviously, no church should exercise political power. (And we don't need Islam to see how bad that can be.)

But a political system controlled by people without religious values ( which they can disguise as morals if the word religion offends them) would soon go astray.

One of the dismaying things to see in Britain is the utter collapse of anything that could be called moral or religious values in any political party.

Nor do I see any reason to be critical of a clergy being involved in politics - certainly no more than I would object to business excecutives or school teachers or union leaders. Indeed, it should be a central purpose of the clergy to make people aware of the connectins between politics and our religious and moral beliefs. At least two of the most successful leaders  in Canadian political history have been clergymen.

Certanily not in Canada. Church and state have been connected for... what... 400 years?

In Quebec, the Catholic church and the state were intimately linked. Until the 1970s, no government of Quebec would have dreamed of passing any legislation without first getting the approval of the bishop.

federally, I have seen papers dating back to the 1920s in which strict records were kept of the religious affiliations of senators - to make sure correct ratios were maintained. And it may well have lasted longer than that.

The same was true in New Brunswick well into the 1980's. That was the reason Dr. Henry Morganthaler could never open a clinic in that province.

DKS - I'm not sure when it opened but we do have a Morganthaler clinic in NB.

It opened long after the 1980's when I lived there. I know for a fact that certain government policies were passed by the Archdiocese in Saint John and Moncton in that time.

As a gift, i shall tell you the origin of holy moly.

It was first spoken by Billy Batson, boy reporter who, when saying the world "Shazam" would become the caped (and flying) enemy of evil-doers. He hung up his cape when the owner of Superman sued his owners.

Hi graeme,

He actually is back.

DC bought the rights to several comic interests and won ownership of Captain Marvel.  The big red cheese.

DC revived the character of Captain Marvel several times though it appears to fail in each incarnation.

There is an animated movie (quite good) titled:  Superman, Shazam and the Return of Black Adam which is essentially the Captain Marvel origen story.

Current'y he is being revived one more time in DC Comic's New 52.

Grace and peace to you.

John

As a follower of The Way  -anything that concerns love of neighbour - is a concern of mine.

Thus, as most political issues impact on "love of neighbour", it is a concern of mine.

The waters are somewhat muddied when we use the word "church".

If you take an issue like LGBT right to marriage -it's apparent that not only different faiths -but also different denominations within that faith- have a different interpretation...........

revjohn, I fear you spend too much of your time in frivolous reading. For something more serious, look up a Canadian government comic book called Al Cohol.

Al is a superhero with blonde hair who wears a skin tight suit (no hat) in the Arctic. He finds evil - which invariably comes in the form of an Inuit. (The comic is designed for Iniuit readers.)

Al's one weakness is alcohol so, whenever he's need, he's smashed out of his mind.

Apparently the intention is to cut inuit drinking.

Churches have every right to involve themselves in politics. Even the American constitution does not prohibit that. It simply prohibits giving the chuches (and esp. one church) the right to an official role in governing. Otherwise, like you or a political party or any volunteer organization, the church has every right (indeed, duty) to be involved in political matters.In fact, God is invoked in the American constitution itself.

Churches, like us, do not have a right to formally approve legislation. that is up to mps. But churches, like us, can certainly speak, campaign, protest as much as they like.

There is no North american tradition that denies that.

Hi graeme,

Too true.  Comics, unlike hansard have pictures.  And to be honest.  I find comic books far more rational than hansard on most days.

I will indeed research that reference.

Agreed.  The separation of Church and state is not about parallel streets which never intersect.  It is more about one way streets.  Specifically, you can legally drive from Church to Parliament traffic moving the other way contravenes the rules of the road.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi graeme,

So bad it is ranked #1 among 6 hilarious attempts to brainwash kids.

http://www.cracked.com/article/209_6-hilarious-attempts-at-brainwashing-kids-with-comic-books/

Grace and peace to you.

John

What a great site!

You're a good man, revjohn.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/24/michael-den-tandt-the-sta...

From the middle of the column:

Comics have, ah, changed since I last read them!

Almost all politicians i have known have had church affiliations - but not so many were Christians in any real sense - and certainly not in any intelligent sense. One of the outstanding Christians I met was Warren Allmand, a devout Catholic who really practriced his principles, and who served in the Trudeau cabinets.

Harper may be a Baptist; but if so he's certainly a much more primitive one than Tommy Douglas. I don't think that a man who so openly serves the rich, sends troops to Afghanistan for no Christian reason that i can determine, and sends our aircraft to bomb Libya can really be defined as Christian. That's rather like painting a picture of Christ whering a bomber's jacket - as Bush did.

One of the fundamental rules of reality:

everything has a cost

TANSTAAFL :3

John Simcoe - the new governor of Upper Canada tried to enact a law making the Anglican Church the official established religion of Upper Canada. He was persuaded otherwise, and, later, invited Moravian settler to move in.

The Anglican Church was the Established Church in Upper Canada from 1791. The Clergy Reserves and the Anglican Church disestablished in 1854.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_reserve

Yes, and different congregations within those denominations can differ on that issue, and different individuals within those congregations.

RIch blessings.

---

MC jae

Yuppers, even to other things like 'what is or isn't G_d', Jesus, Deity, worship, the Divine, spirituality, right worship, blasphemy...