A new article by Scott Redmond titled "Get Over The Rainbow - the Separation of Church ... and Homosexuality" has been posted on the site.

A brief synopsis is below:

"The Federal Marriage Amendment put forth by Rev. Jerry Falwell attempts to enforce the religious beliefs of one segment society onto the society as a whole. This is in direct conflict with the principle of separation of Church and state which has been the hallmark of our country for over 200 years."

Just a quick note that Scott has a newly published book called "Get Over the Rainbow" that will be up on the book list soon! He is going to be blessing us with a series of articles based upon his new book.

quote:

"The Federal Marriage Amendment put forth by Rev. Jerry Falwell attempts to enforce the religious beliefs of one segment society onto the society as a whole. This is in direct conflict with the principle of separation of Church and state which has been the hallmark of our country for over 200 years."

What exactly is the fundamental principle of separation of Church and state?

quote:

Originally posted by Fred:

quote:

"The Federal Marriage Amendment put forth by Rev. Jerry Falwell attempts to enforce the religious beliefs of one segment society onto the society as a whole. This is in direct conflict with the principle of separation of Church and state which has been the hallmark of our country for over 200 years."

What exactly is the fundamental principle of separation of Church and state?

The marriage amendment would attempt to codify and make into the 'law of the land' one segment of societies interpretation of Scripture. In so doing the law would discriminate against another segment of society’s rights and freedoms as citizens of the United States. There are many rights and privileges passed along through marriage. To deny one segment of societies ability to attain these same rights and privileges goes against the basic principle that our country is built upon. That being that "all (people) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As my other half so eloquently states. ‘Why is government involved in this issue anyway? If a church or a denomination doesn’t believe in two people getting married then nothing stops them from turning down the privilege of performing the ceremony.’ This already occurs throughout the different religious groups and even within different denominations. The Catholics have one set of rules regarding marriage and the Mormons another, Protestants a third and so one. If one of these groups is asked to perform a marriage that they are morally against the minister turns down the request. The parties involved can then go to another church or have a civil ceremony done. The government doesn’t get involved in such religious discussions and debates.

The marriage amendment is an attempt to circumvent the ‘checks and balances’ built into the constitution to protect the citizens of the United States from discrimination. Our country was founded upon many principles, one of them being the right to religious freedom. This was done because the first settlers came here to flee religious persecution. The constitution was created to protect the citizens of the United States from that ever occurring again. The irony of the situation is that some people now want to use that same constitutional document to pass legislation to permanently create a two tiered system of citizenship. Those with rights and those without. Would God favor a country that practiced such injustice towards her citizens (and His people!)? No! I wrote an article awhile back while pondering this same issue. It's titled "Righteousness and Justice" - it kind of sums up my views on this matter - from a religious perspective.

It is the principle by which state powers and Church structure are not allowed to influence each other. If you have in mind the terrible consequences of the interconnectedness between the two during the Middle Ages, it is understandable how the separation became such an important part of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, US Constitution...

quote:

Originally posted by Fred:
What exactly is the fundamental principle of separation of Church and state?

quote:

Originally posted by Elaine:

quote:

Originally posted by Fred:

quote:

"The Federal Marriage Amendment put forth by Rev. Jerry Falwell attempts to enforce the religious beliefs of one segment society onto the society as a whole. This is in direct conflict with the principle of separation of Church and state which has been the hallmark of our country for over 200 years."

What exactly is the fundamental principle of separation of Church and state?

The marriage amendment would attempt to codify and make into the 'law of the land' one segment of societies interpretation of Scripture.

The object of the separation of church and state is to exempt the duty which we owe to our Creator from the cognizance of the civil magistrate. Marriage is not a duty owed to our Creator. Thus, marriage is not exempt from the cognizance of the civil magistrate.



First Amendment

As I read about Jerry Falwell I have an observation that I will keep in refernce to transgenders since I may be the only one and I don't wish to hurt anyone by accident.

Since Jerry Falwell appears to believe in the conservative train of thought people like me would be evil, lost or demon-possessed in his sight.

Since the Bible says evil and lawlessness will abound in the last days why is he fighting it with legislation if he truly is a man of God?

For one; he would be fighting what God has said would take place and that in a sense gives me the impression that he must think he is stronger than God to overcome the word of God.

For two; since he has one foot behind the pulpit and the other in politics, he appears to me to be double-minded. The word of God says a double minded man is unstable in all his ways. You can't claim to preach the word and fight the word at the same time.

Maybe Mr. Falwell should leave the "Moral Majority" and join the Christian remnant that love the Lord with all their heart and soul and strength and mind.

Better yet; maybe just get an honest job and go back to sitting on a church pew and learning.

But that's just my opinion.

May God bless you.

Tiffany

quote:

"The Federal Marriage Amendment put forth by Rev. Jerry Falwell attempts to enforce the religious beliefs of one segment society onto the society as a whole.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that, "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God." The principle that marriage is for one man and one woman is not a religious principle. It is a civil principle.

Marriage is not something that "is a matter which lies solely between man and his God." Marriage involves another person. Thus, it is within the cognizance of civil authority.

quote:

"The Federal Marriage Amendment put forth by Rev. Jerry Falwell attempts to enforce the religious beliefs of one segment society onto the society as a whole.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that, "Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God." The principle that marriage is for one man and one woman is not a religious principle. It is a civil principle.

Marriage is not something that "is a matter which lies solely between man and his God." Marriage involves another person. Thus, it is within the cognizance of civil authority.

quote:

The marriage amendment would attempt to codify and make into the 'law of the land' one segment of societies interpretation of Scripture.

The principle of separation of church and state applies only to religion; which is the duty that we owe to our Creator, which pertains to matters which lie solely between man and his God. Marriage is not a duty which we owe to our Creator because marriage is a matter that involves another person.

If we believe we are Sons and Daughters of God, then everything we do and everyone we engage in covenant relationship with(Marriage)Two becoming one as the Scriptures declare, is very much concern to our Heavenly Father, since He is the one who instituted Marriage from the very beginning!
In the meantime we are to obey civil authority as Jesus Himself did.

Separation of Church from the State

"Unto God the things that are God's."

The Lord Jesus Christ dwelled on earth in the midst of a despotic government that exercised dominion over all things pertaining to human life and destiny. There was no distinction between civil and religious affairs. None was made, because none was known.

Religion was simply a part of the state, and therefore subject to human law equally with war or commerce. The Savior, with unerring accuracy, exposed the falseness of this view.

Christ did not oppose the authority of the rulers over civil affairs. Concerning it he pronounced no opinion except to declare that they, at least, who recognized it in any matters pertaining to it should obey it in all.

In making this decision the Lord drew for all coming time the line of separation between the state and religion. “RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CESAR'S, AND UNTO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD'S.” In accordance with his own decision, Christ utterly disregarded Caesar’s claim to authority over things belonging to God.

Jesus knew that civil authority over religion had no foundation and was maintained only by force. Consequently, the Son of God did not go to the civil authority for permission to promulgate the Gospel. When arraigned-concerning things pertaining to his mission as a prophet from God, the Lord demonstrated his contempt for civil authority over religion by declining to even plead a defense.

Instead, the Savior gathered the people around him and taught them, as a right which he of himself possessed, and to which they had an equal right to respond. He selected messengers also to proclaim his religion, and commanded them to make it known to every creature in the entire world. By these acts he asserted that, with respect to religion, his disciples and mankind were of right independent of all civil government. Power to restrict and silence them he knew existed. It was everywhere around them. It always had its hand on them. It might arrest, imprison, scourge them, and put them to death. Of this he warned them, yet gave them no sword for their own defense. On the contrary, he strictly forbade their using the sword.

Their own discretion, argument, flight, suffering and his mediatory care were all the resources he allowed them against the wildest fury of absolute temporal power. But the right of the civil government to arrest or hinder them the Savior ignored as a nullity. They were to go forth everywhere, obedient to him as their sovereign Lord in religious things, and so far independent of men. And their right to do so was finally to prevail over all opposing power.

This separation of religion from civil government was contrary to the theory and practice of mankind at the time it was announced. The Savior was the only being on earth who then perfectly understood it. Against it human power, thought and prejudice were at once arrayed.

During the last two thousand years, religion has been persecuted by hostile governments and corrupted almost to destruction by the foolish impious assumed authority of patronizing rulers. Every step of the advancement of separation of church and state has been won by endurance or bought with blood.

Christ proclaimed the independence of religion from civil authority. However, it has never been fully realized. The United States should be the first nation to establish a perfect separation of church and state.

All vestiges of civil power over the things that are God’s should be abolished.

I do not wish to get political but we are engaged in a war in which Christians do not like the idea of a religion (Islam) ruling a people and yet these same religious leaders are trying to enact legislation whereby their religious views control a society. Am I alone in seeing a form of hypocrisy here?
I definately agree that as Christians we should follow the teachings of Jesus and render unto Caesar the things that be Caesar's and unto God the things athat be God's.
Tiff

In reading over the posts on this thread, I see two views of marriage: One, that it is a civil matter and not religious, and, two, that it is religious and not civil. For myself, I believe that marriage is both religious and civil, and that changes in each of these areas should be separate. Marriage in the religious sense involves the union before God of two people who make promises to each other. Marriage in the civil sense is a contract between two people who then get certain rights and responsibilities. True separation of church and state would involve the awareness that these are two different things. Changing the religious perspective on marriage is a matter of time, prayer and witness. We need to change people's hearts, and that is happening, tho slowly. Changing the civil aspect of marriage is a matter of law. This is where advocacy comes in, and civil suits against existing laws. Both of these areas are important, of course. This is also slowly changing. And each should be changed, but some people are better dealing with changing hearts and some are better with changing laws.
Ingrid