I notice that Churches, rightfully, usually don't run democratically. Decision-making isn't put to a equal vote by all members, they rely on the Leadership to make the decisions, and if you don't like it you leave. Am I right in thinking that lack of democracy is a major reason for the seperation of Church and State? If it's only a minor justification than it doesn't matter, just something I thought up whilst reading Productive Christians. If it's the reason for the seperation then good!
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
Actually, the reason for the separation of church and state dates back to the time of the colonies. In the centuries before the colonists, the English government forced loyalty to the religious group in power, and those that resisted were severely punished. In the new America, where these people had gone to escape such persecution, much of the same was unfortunately found. Believers and non-believers alike were forced to attend church services and pay tithes and taxes to support government-sponsored churches.
The feelings of indignation that such policies caused led to the First Amendment. I believe it was Madison who said that true religion does not need the support of the law.
Although you make an interesting point, the distinction between a democratically run church and a non-democratically run church is not that important. After all, something being supported by the majority does not necessarily mean that it should be constitutional.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, actually, you might say that because churches are separated from their states, they are actually extremely democratic, in that the members vote with their tithes. I suspect that a church which preached that only its members were susceptible to eternal hellfire would soon find itself out of business. This is a deliberately absurd example, of course; but there don't seem to be many Quakers around anymore, to mention just one formerly-large sect.
It's also worth noting that back when we had powerful state churches, no nation with the possible exception of Switzerland was anything remotely resembling what we would call a democracy.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Some churches are democratic. They're referred to as congregational leadership churches, where the congregation is involved and must vote on practically everything. I remember my grandparents talking of attending church meetings where the had to take a congregational vote on whether or not to pay the power bill.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think that the reason church is separated from state is because governments tend to oppress people of other religions when it has established one as the "official" religion. Democracy doesn't really have much to do with it - and it's completely possible that even a dictatorship or monarchy might want to separate church from state.
It should also be noted that there are many undemocratic institutions that ARE a part of the state. The Supreme Court is one example, because it is not elected by the people, does not answer to the people, and often contradicts the general will of the people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The majority of what I've learned in history class leads me to believe that the separation of Church and State comes more from a desire to keep the state out of the church, rather than the other way around.
America's fathers had no problem with having very religious men as their leaders and representatives, one of the second continental congress' members was a reverand. Their problem, as witnessed in Britain, was a government that tried to control religion.
I'm not sure if the fathers of America could have forseen just how diverse the American nation has become today, but religiously it was already more diverse than the nations many of them had come from. Many fleeing religious oppression wanted to eliminate any of the persecution they'd faced in their home countries.
I wonder where along the line people started to believe that any religion at all in the government was a serious violation of the original intent of the founders. Legislating religion is I believe, a problem, but religious leaders, and religious values led lawmaking, while perhaps questionable and debateable, is not a violation of the letter of the law, and certainly not the spirit of the law from the intent of the founders.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I dunno, maybe it was the part where religious men in Southern legislatures used the bible as proof of the rightness of slavery?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Some also claimed certain races were biologically inferior to others - but that didn't result in the rejection of biology in state affairs.
I think the idea that religious values and leaders don't belong in state affairs is fairly new. After all, it was not that long ago that being Catholic was considered a major barrier to being elected President. I suspect the change has something to do with the evolution of the public school system, and the court cases associated with that. Schools emphasize the separation of church and state as a major tenet of the American system, but fail to explain what that means, giving the impression that anything related to religion needs to stay away from anything related to state. The requirement that public schools stay away from anything related to religion reinforces this misbelief. This may be changing, though, as both parties seem to be finding that candidates who do discuss their religious values have been more successful - so it's possible that religion may once again become a greater influence on state affairs.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Having grown up in a Congregationalist church, I can attest to some of what Belle mentioned. While the members didn't vote on every little issue, any thing deemed vital, including yearly budgets, and changes in which church programs money went to, were voted on by the members of the church. In my church, there was a mini-separation of church and state, where the Trustees (those who dealt with the day-to-day financial oblicagtions of the church) were a completely separate board from our Deacons, which dealt with the religious obligations of the church. I think it was discouraged, or even disallowed, to be on both at the same time, and the minister, in Congregationalist churches are NEVER members of the individual church they administer to, and thus are solely advisors.
It's a neat way to keep everything on the up and up.