Comments on SEPARATING CHURCH FROM STATE ( Separating Man from God, Where Love Begins)

Go to Rotsen's VIEW ON RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITYAdd a commentGo to SEPARATING CHURCH FROM STATE ( Separating Man from God, Where Love Begins)

Re: We're Trying to do it Ourselves, Yes, its true and

I reflect on how the Theology of Liberation of Catholic Theologians brought about an Existential Spirituality of vigorously interferring in the temporal needs of people starting out in Latin America in the 1970s and spreading to many parts of Asia particularly the Philippines. It justified the position that man should first be liberated from dehumanizing situation around him most of which were brought about by secular governments' neglect of the people's welfare. That this liberation must come first before the spiritual salvation of man. That man consists of body and spirit and that a man dehumanized by his opressive environment cannot attend to the needs of his spirit. This theology playing on people's emotion overthrew two governments in the Philippines thru the so-called "people power" and have caused unrests in many parts of Asia today.

 

 

posted by Rotsen on November 30, 2008 at 5:10 PM | link to this | reply

Separation of Church & State is an important aspect of religious practice that way too many religious people ignore or rebel against.  It's not just what they do do, but also what they don't do.   The positive teachings in The Bible about SofC&S is to "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" and the show & tell example was a coin.  How many of us willingly and uncomplainingly pay our taxes.  How many of us willingly and uncomplainingly give of our tithes and offerings to God.  The other thing that we most often fail to do is to pray for the leaders of our government.  We are not told to interfere in the doings of the government, but to commit to praying for the leaders.  We are told that God can and will direct the leaders in the way that he would have them to lead.  Most often we get in the way of God's direct line to the leaders by insisting on trying to do it ourselves.

posted by TAPS. on November 30, 2008 at 9:37 AM | link to this | reply

I agree it is a thin grey line! sam

posted by sam444 on November 29, 2008 at 6:18 AM | link to this | reply

Re: I am sorry, but . . .
  • Thanks Xeno-x I agree with you that "no Church SHOULD interfere in the affairs of a secular government." This is provided for in most constitutions of secular governments. While I appear advocating for such interference I was actually looking at realities. The Church will always speak against immoralities committed by leaders in government and when thenChurch does so, it interfers. In some parts of the world this has led to the toppling of governments thru the so-called "people power"
  • The Church leaders argue that while the state is tasked in attending to man's temporal needs, the Church must look into man's spiritual food, and when the church leaders believe that the state allow oppressive laws that dehumanize people, then it has the right to speak against it (not anymore in the way of the middles ages when the church wield so much power).
  •  

    posted by Rotsen on November 28, 2008 at 3:55 PM | link to this | reply

    I am sorry, but . . .

    no Church should interfere in the affairs of a secular government.

    I have taken this subject up numerous times.  Certain things: murder, robbery, etc., are what you'd call common -- any gov't would have rules against them.  And yes, religion has influenced government.

    But then we've had Sunday Blue Laws, prayer in schools, etc., where religion imposes itself upon the secular world.

    But, where you  find, like the Middle Ages, where The Church ruled European governments and was basically a monolithic, repressive system where no other view was tolerated, and Church was the State to all intents and purposes, then you have to admit that there was a problem.

    And where the King of England was head of the Anglican Church and Anglicanism was practiced and other Christian beliefs were basically persecuted, then we have another problem.

    And it was this problem that our Founding Fathers addressed.  Different religions were represented -- varying Christian beliefs -- Jewish, etc.  They did not want religion imposing itself upon secular government.  Later, a Baptist minister opposed the Post Office closing on Sunday, saying it is Church influencing State.

    Jefferson wrote about the "wall between Church and State".  For good reason.  You allow Church to influence state directly and blatantly and you open the floodgates to the possibility of eventually a Religious Dictatorship, where only one religious belief rules affairs and others are not allowed -- one Christian denomination (just like the Dark Ages) where other religious viewpoints are not tolerated.

    To favor no religion is to provide freedom for all.

    posted by Xeno-x on November 28, 2008 at 5:11 AM | link to this | reply