🚀 go-pugleaf

In <66436@hydra.gatech.EDU> scott@prism.gatech.EDU (Scott Holt) writes:
}Separation of Church and State is a myth in a democracy...it is a 
}contradiction. Why? Well, consider what both the Church and the 
}democratic State are. They are not really institutions (though they
}tend to manifest themselves as institutions), they are the people.
}The essence of the Church is not the buildings, the clergy or the rules,
}its the faith and the people who follow it. Likewise, the democratic State 
}is no the legislature or the president, but the people who elect them. 
}Well, despite the fact that there are many in both the Church and 
}State who elect not to participate in the other, there is a great deal 
}of overlap - in short, they are the same people, thus there can be no 
}separation.

No, they are not the same people.  You speak of "the Church" as if
there is only "one" Church, and I contend that is not so, whether
you speak of an institution or a body of people.  You speak as if
there is only that "one" Church, and those who are not of that
"one" Church, and whichever Church you are touting as "the Church"
I can assure you there are far more out there which are viable,
practicing religious communities which are not part of that
"Church."
  The very idea of "congregational polity" (the idea that a
church or congregation is a democracy free from ecclesiastical
control) is primarily a tenant of Baptists, Unitarian-Universalists,
a few other denominations and non-denominational independent
churches.  In much of Christianity that is not the case.
(The same could well be discussed for religions whose roots are
not Judeo-Christian.)

}If you are a member of a Church (or other religious body), you have a
}responsibility of faith to attempt to practice the moral ideals of
}your religion in every aspect of your life. This includes the decisions
}you make concerning the State. You have no choice to but to impose
}your religious morality on the State.

Utterly false.  There are many whose religious beliefs do not
obligate an imposition of those beliefs on others through civil
law.

}I believe that the constitutional provisions which have been interpreted
}as requiring the separation of Church and State were designed solely to
}prevent the Church INSTITUTIONS from becoming State INSTITUTIONS. These
}provisions were not, however, meant to prevent those who hold certain
}moral views (religiously inspired or otherwise) from imposing those views
}on the State.

It is intended to prevent one religious group from using civil law
to impose their doctrines on others, including others whose
beliefs are in minority.
  Read New England history, for one, particularly where taxes were
imposed by civil authorities for support of clergy and the
churches, as well as civil persecutions of those who were not
members of the state-approved-and-sponsored church.
Yes, it happened right here in the U.S.A..
  While your idealized pictures equate the "State" and the "Church"
with "the people" the fact is that civil law is imposed by the
"State as Institution" and many attempts to impose religious
specificity on those laws are carried out through "the (sic) Church
as Institution."


Cheers,

--Mark Gresham

dscatl!mgresham@gatech.edu

==========================