The Separation of Church and State

(Credit goes to Bishop Conley of Lincoln & his friend Harry Biltz for 1st coining the word "atheocracy.")
The "wall of separation between church and state" doesn't mean the public square should be free from the presence or influence of faith. It means our faith is free from the strong arming influence of the state, and we can express it ANYWHERE and let it influence every activity we engage in (not just the way we worship behind closed doors...but, for example, even the kind of health care we people of faith provide our employees). I'm not pushing for theocracy. But the opposite extreme is an "atheocracy," which would put our deepest convictions about God, who we are, and the meaning of life under the control of a state that picks where, when, and how we express those convictions. In such a state, true freedom is dead. (The HHS mandate is about more than insurance for contraception and abortifacients, folks.)

[mrdongiri]

"Declaration of Independence states that WE have God given rights. Not state given rights, not king given rights, not government given rights but God given rights.And the government function is to protect those rights that government could never give By an awesome dude Chris.  That explains a lot.

[NintendoNano]

Downright awesome. Love the explanations, and the facts that back them up.

[ClarifyingCatholicism]

Nailed it! Great video. I just made a video on this topic (though mine gets specific with Catholicism) as well that details why we NEED religious acceptance, tolerance, and even influence in the government. Also, I love the term "atheocracy". Great vid! Will definitely share with friends.

[rosa-mariastoeber]

Thanks for the great explanation, hope people in another countries take note of this too, for their own benefit.

[lissavictoria]

Love your enthusiasm. Keep them coming!

[sheepmaysafelygraze]

This is great, thank you Chris! Will definitely spread this around

[Unclenate]

This is why I'm a libertarian (nearly anarchist) Catholic, because the state has historically been the greatest opposition to the Church.

Catholics should be out preaching the truth with personal compassion. Trying to have Catholicism legislated and forced upon others is not logically Catholic nor compassionate. God gave us free will, so we can't force these things through the state.

We can only preach and argue for them and let God change their hearts

[Unclenate]

separation is good going both ways. The Church should never conflate itself with that which has historically held back humanity for perhaps centuries; big states.

[dire]

What if my religion infringes upon others constitutional rights?

[BillKinggarak]

You cannot post links any longer on You Tube so go to the New York Times webpage and read today's editorial (Sunday-March-23 on this topic)

[nakenmil]

Rights are interesting thing: they don't exist until they suddenly do, and they exist until they suddenly don't. They rely on practical force and power (in the Weberian sense) to be actualized, and they rely on specific trends and paradigms in discourse to be conceived of.

I suppose what I'm saying is that the idea of God-given rights appear to me to be mostly a legal fiction, when, looking at it from a purely practical perspective, they were institutionalized through a secular, temporal state document, and upheld through the physical and judicial power of a man-made state and its citizens' political leanings.

Then again, I appreciate its value as a legal fiction. One could argue that by hinging certain legal principles upon an authority higher than that of the state, it can to some degree serve as a deterrent against wanton altering of those legal principles. Somewhat like how laws of states have to defer to traditional customs, particularly those that predate the states in question,  in various regions of the world as a matter of principle.

[Azygos]

A government is a group of people who have political power and control, which they use to govern and exercise in the affairs of people at the State, Local level or in a Community. This group of people in government, whomever they are (including Atheist), cannot simply leave their religious convictions at the door when they enter into the realm of decision making, especially those involved in civil affairs. Those people who claim that religion (particularly the Christian religion) should be exited by those in civil government are really saying that secularism and atheism, both parts of the religion of secular humanism, should be the religion of the State whereby all decisions are made in the light thereof. They are also saying that people cannot make civil decisions based on their Christian religious convictions, even though they let secular humanism, that radical secularism where God is excluded influence their decision making.

I refuse this non-sense, if there is to be a dominant religion in Government then it ought to be the true one, where the object is truth and goodness itself (God). When the government has as its object, God - truth and goodness then it will be able to govern in such a way that will help people be most free and virtuous. This secularism will end up reigning as the tyrant everybody fears most, it will be oppressive and it will set itself up as the highest authority of the land. In short, if your rights as a human being are not given to you by God himself then the State must give them, and what the State giveth, the State can taketh away. I have no reason to trust a secular form of government, but I have every reason to trust a Government of people who submit to God, to divine and natural law, who hold that they too are under authority and cannot simply do what they want at any given moment.

[csm]

"to mean that the public square has to be free from the presence or influence of religion."

This is a bald faced lie.

The separation of church and state means that the STATE cannot be seen to be favoring one religion over others.

We have a constitution that, at its heart, strives to treat all people equally.  Even when others may not like it. 

In California some citizens attempted to vote that some tax paying, law abiding citizens were not entitled to the same benefits of citizenship as other tax paying, law abiding citizens. This vote was based on the religious belief that same sex marriage was wrong.

In a process outlined in our laws and constitution other citizens fought to overturn that vote and, in time, it was correctly deemed unconstitutional.

Were churches shuttered?  Were priests jailed?  Was anyone stopped from spouting whatever religious position they wanted?  NO.

Religion is welcome in the public square, but not at the expense of equal rights for all citizens--regardless of whether they believe in that religious teaching or not.

And finally Chris--the next time you or Archbishop Cordileone want people to vote on which citizens get which rights I'd suggest you both remember this--next time we may decide to vote on YOURS.

[henryjonesjr.]

I refuse to pay taxes toward anything that has the mention of religion. That is my right according to the constitution! Yet they force us to do it anyway.

[tattoobabe]

THANK YOU!!!  All of your videos are so amazing.

[stkkjj]

I don't get the point. Of course you can express your beliefs, separation of church and state stops laws from being made based on religious beliefs.

[libertyjosh]

Early in 1774, Madison learned that several Baptist preachers were
behind bars in a nearby county for public preaching. On Jan. 24, an
enraged Madison wrote to his friend William Bradford in Philadelphia
about the situation. "That diabolical Hell conceived principle of
persecution rages among some and to their eternal Infamy the Clergy can
furnish their quota of Imps for such business, " Madison wrote. "This
vexes me the most of any thing whatever. There are at this time in the
adjacent County not less than 5 or 6 well meaning men in close Gaol
[jail] for publishing their religious Sentiments which in the main are
very orthodox. I have neither the patience to hear talk or think any
thing relative to this matter, for I have squabbled and scolded abused
and ridiculed so long about it, to so little purpose that I am without
common patience. So I leave you to pity me and pray for Liberty of
Conscience to revive among us."



Madison soon had the opportunity to translate his anger into action. As
a member of the Revolutionary Convention in Virginia in 1776, Madison
sought to disestablish the Church of England in that state and secure
passage of an amendment guaranteeing religious liberty to all. The
attempt at disestablishment failed, but Madison's ideas on religious
freedom were included in an "Article on Religion" that was adopted by
the Convention. The statement held that religion can be "directed only
by reason and conviction, not force or violence" and guaranteed to all
"the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of
conscience."

Here Madison was responsible for a great leap forward in thinking. At
the Revolutionary Convention, delegate George Mason had proposed an
amendment guaranteeing "toleration" of all faiths. To Madison, this did
not go far enough. He sought to expand religious liberty rights beyond
mere toleration and argued for the "free exercise" of religion a concept
that would later resurface in the First Amendment.

Madison's proposal was turned over to an 11-member committee, of which
he was a member, for consideration. Several proposed amendments were put
forth. Some members favored allowing the federal government to endorse
religion in a general way as long as it did not engage in preferential
treatment of any sect. These proposals were rejected as too weak.

The committee eventually settled on language reading, "Congress shall
make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or
prohibiting the free exercise of religion."


The House of Representatives refused to accept this version, so a joint
Senate-House committee, which included Madison, was charged with the
task of forging a compromise. The records of their debate is sketchy,
but it was this committee that eventually emerged with the language we
know today: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."


Madison originally wanted to expand the First Amendment to apply to the
states as well as the federal government. In fact, he saw this as the
amendment's most important feature. His proposal cleared the House but
was voted down in the Senate, and the amendment passed as a prohibition
on the federal government only.

[edenmessi]

Saying that Church and State must be separated from one another, is the same as saying that an owner of a company has no say in his company, and that the employees should be in charge of his business, something he created from the start. Them employees be like, we need to separate the boss from his brand and start making our own rules...does that even make sense, no?? Than hell yeah God has all the saying in his playground. If your'e a muslim and you support democracy, i hate to break it down to you, you are a hypocrite. Long live Theocracy within particular the Theocratic Republic. Muhammad ended the Theocratic Kingdom established by Moses, and replaced it with a Theocratic Reppublic.

[Unclenate]

On a political note, it makes no sense whatsoever that an outside entity can tell someone else what to do with their own property. Hobby Lobby should be allowed the right to their own property and whatever they want to do with it.

[BillKinggarak]

So if Hobby Lobby can  legally deny there employees (who may not be Christians or agree with the owners of Hobby Lobby POV on Contraception) Access to Birth Control because of Religious Freedom of the Hobby Lobby owners that seems to suggest to me if a Practicing Muslim is the owner of a candy store and a kid come in a steals a candy bar and attempts to run out the store the owner of the store under Religious Freedom is within his rights to catch that kid bring him into the store and cut off his right hand because that is what his Religious Believes tell his is the correct thing to do. Or does Religious Freedom only apply to Christian Believes.