What Is Separation of Church and State?

[Duane]

The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the U.S. Constitution, but the concept is enshrined in the very first freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Known as the establishment clause, the opening lines of the First Amendment prohibit the government from creating an official religion or favoring one religion (or nonreligion) over another.

The separation of church and state enables all Americans to practice their deeply held beliefs in private and in public.

 

[mikesw]

the separation of church and state is supposedly just part of the communist Russia system.

The restriction of the first amendment is against the US Congress creating laws to promote a specific religious group -- such as a promotion of a US official church with tax support. At the time of its writing, the independent States or colonies had state endorsed church groups which they wished to preserve.
Of course, this amendment did not prohibit expression of religion in Congress or anywhere else. On the contrary, the freedom of speech is the right to express religious belief and practices.

 

[Kenny]

The idea of church/state separation came from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. Again, contrary to the propaganda from the revisionists, Jefferson’s cause was to protect religious liberties from an intrusive government. In no way did Jefferson or any of the other framers of the U.S. Constitution seek to restrict Americans’ religious activities.

 

[civic]

the separation of church and state is supposedly just part of the communist Russia system.

The restriction of the first amendment is against the US Congress creating laws to promote a specific religious group -- such as a promotion of a US official church with tax support. At the time of its writing, the independent States or colonies had state endorsed church groups which they wished to preserve.
Of course, this amendment did not prohibit expression of religion in Congress or anywhere else. On the contrary, the freedom of speech is the right to express religious belief and practices.

That’s what we do here is let everyone express their religious freedom without the fear of retaliation, persecution or mockery and personal attacks. We give everyone the opportunity to defend their beliefs , right, wrong or indifferent. Without being censored. We just ask the members to treat others with respect following the golden rule.

 

[mikesw]

That’s what we do here is let everyone express their religious freedom without the fear of retaliation, persecution or mockery and personal attacks. We give everyone the opportunity to defend their beliefs , right, wrong or indifferent.

That goes beyond the first amendment. Freedom of speech in that amendment does not mean someone's speech will be protected from the boomerang effect. But indeed, the goal is decent at Berean Apologetics.

 

[Kenny]

That’s what we do here is let everyone express their religious freedom without the fear of retaliation, persecution or mockery and personal attacks. We give everyone the opportunity to defend their beliefs , right, wrong or indifferent. Without being censored. We just ask the members to treat others with respect following the golden rule.

Works for me

 

[atpollard]

1636​

Roger Williams strongly believed in and advocated for the separation of church and state, advocating for a government that could not enforce religious beliefs or compel individuals to worship against their conscience. He argued for "soul liberty" for all people and founded Rhode Island as a refuge based on these principles of complete religious toleration.

• Government's role:
  Williams believed the government's power should be limited to civil matters and that it had no right or authority to interfere with an individual's spiritual life or conscience.

• Religious freedom for all:
  His vision included freedom of conscience for people of all faiths and no faith, including Jews, Catholics, Muslims, and atheists, which was a revolutionary idea at the time.

• Founding of Rhode Island: He established the colony of Rhode Island on land purchased from Native Americans, creating a sanctuary for those seeking religious freedom from persecution.

• Critique of state religion: Williams opposed the practice of the state enforcing religious uniformity or compelling people to attend church or take oaths, which he saw as corrupting both government and individual freedom.

• "Soul Liberty": He promoted "soul liberty," a concept emphasizing that no one should be forced into religious acts or doctrines against their will.

BAPTIST DISTINCTIVE:​

INDIVIDUAL SOUL LIBERTY​

Baptists have had a long-term determination to adhere to the Biblical doctrine that they call "Individual Soul Liberty."

Church history verifies that Christians have died for this principle. The teaching that individuals are sovereign in matters of faith is one that Baptists will not compromise.

The individual soul is answerable to Almighty God and to Him alone. This precludes giving up that independency to a pope, a priest, a system, an organization, a convention, a fellowship, an association, or any other human being. None of these are given the authority to interpose anything whatsoever between the individual believer and God concerning any matter of faith.

A person may then choose to be a Baptist, a member of another Christian denomination or to choose no religious belief system and neither the church, nor the government, nor family or friends may either make the decision or compel the person to choose otherwise. Furthermore, a person may change his/her mind at any time.

This doctrine springs from the many examples in church history where the independency of the believer was stifled and sometimes even forbidden. Under the rule of Constantine, Roman law demanded that all people in the Roman Empire become Christians. The result of this law was forcing Christianity upon the masses by infant baptism and a meaningless profession by adults. Accordingly, the Dark Ages are a testimony to the absolute failure imposed on believers when the "church" begins to dictate whatever "truth" it deems necessary to force all members to conform. Not only is Roman Catholocism guilty of this but so are many of the mainline Protestant denominations.

Furthermore, Baptists themselves would do well to avoid the denial of this doctrine. Pastors who overlord their flocks or churches that submit themselves to denominational control will need to return again to the Scriptures concerning this vital historical Bapist distinctive. To demand, whether directly or indirectly, that believers submit to any kind of authoritarian rule is both unscriptural and, in fact, questionable. This generation has seen its Jim Jones's and David Karesh's. Whenever believers give up their individual soul liberty in favor of following the demands of another person or affiliation, they do indeed compromise this essential doctrine of the faith.

(From: http://www.allaboutbaptists.com/distinctives_Individual_Liberty.html )

 

[mikesw]

1636​

Roger Williams strongly believed in and advocated for the separation of church and state, advocating for a government that could not enforce religious beliefs or compel individuals to worship against their conscience. He argued for "soul liberty" for all people and founded Rhode Island as a refuge based on these principles of complete religious toleration.

• Government's role:
  Williams believed the government's power should be limited to civil matters and that it had no right or authority to interfere with an individual's spiritual life or conscience.

• Religious freedom for all:
  His vision included freedom of conscience for people of all faiths and no faith, including Jews, Catholics, Muslims, and atheists, which was a revolutionary idea at the time.

• Founding of Rhode Island: He established the colony of Rhode Island on land purchased from Native Americans, creating a sanctuary for those seeking religious freedom from persecution.

• Critique of state religion: Williams opposed the practice of the state enforcing religious uniformity or compelling people to attend church or take oaths, which he saw as corrupting both government and individual freedom.

• "Soul Liberty": He promoted "soul liberty," a concept emphasizing that no one should be forced into religious acts or doctrines against their will.

BAPTIST DISTINCTIVE:​

INDIVIDUAL SOUL LIBERTY​

Baptists have had a long-term determination to adhere to the Biblical doctrine that they call "Individual Soul Liberty."

Church history verifies that Christians have died for this principle. The teaching that individuals are sovereign in matters of faith is one that Baptists will not compromise.

The individual soul is answerable to Almighty God and to Him alone. This precludes giving up that independency to a pope, a priest, a system, an organization, a convention, a fellowship, an association, or any other human being. None of these are given the authority to interpose anything whatsoever between the individual believer and God concerning any matter of faith.

A person may then choose to be a Baptist, a member of another Christian denomination or to choose no religious belief system and neither the church, nor the government, nor family or friends may either make the decision or compel the person to choose otherwise. Furthermore, a person may change his/her mind at any time.

This doctrine springs from the many examples in church history where the independency of the believer was stifled and sometimes even forbidden. Under the rule of Constantine, Roman law demanded that all people in the Roman Empire become Christians. The result of this law was forcing Christianity upon the masses by infant baptism and a meaningless profession by adults. Accordingly, the Dark Ages are a testimony to the absolute failure imposed on believers when the "church" begins to dictate whatever "truth" it deems necessary to force all members to conform. Not only is Roman Catholocism guilty of this but so are many of the mainline Protestant denominations.

Furthermore, Baptists themselves would do well to avoid the denial of this doctrine. Pastors who overlord their flocks or churches that submit themselves to denominational control will need to return again to the Scriptures concerning this vital historical Bapist distinctive. To demand, whether directly or indirectly, that believers submit to any kind of authoritarian rule is both unscriptural and, in fact, questionable. This generation has seen its Jim Jones's and David Karesh's. Whenever believers give up their individual soul liberty in favor of following the demands of another person or affiliation, they do indeed compromise this essential doctrine of the faith.

(From: http://www.allaboutbaptists.com/distinctives_Individual_Liberty.html )

I think in many ways this is a good policy for the local church groups. One thing is impossible and kind of creates unnecessary skepticism against a group is the idea that everyone will hold to all the same ideas. However, I do agree with the church organization to hold to certain confessions and creeds among the leaders. It is not supposed to be open-ended everything-goes doctrines. This is called honesty in advertising.
It does seem useful for seminary leaders and teachers to hold to certain creeds and confessions while allowing a person to identify an exception or reservation if in doubt of a certain area -- and acceptable to the seminary (or similar organization like Bible Colleges). This can be in support of inquiry that could lead to better doctrines.

 

[civic]

I think in many ways this is a good policy for the local church groups. One thing is impossible and kind of creates unnecessary skepticism against a group is the idea that everyone will hold to all the same ideas. However, I do agree with the church organization to hold to certain confessions and creeds among the leaders. It is not supposed to be open-ended everything-goes doctrines. This is called honesty in advertising.
It does seem useful for seminary leaders and teachers to hold to certain creeds and confessions while allowing a person to identify an exception or reservation if in doubt of a certain area -- and acceptable to the seminary (or similar organization like Bible Colleges). This can be in support of inquiry that could lead to better doctrines.

I believe since the last of the 12 Apostles, man was not to put their trust in any single person as an authority, it’s why they appointed a plurality of elders in the local church. Look at how many men who are/ were pastors over their flocks in our day have fallen.