Baptist views of church-state separation

Another excerpt from pacifism 101. He doesn't understand that the right to even post such dribble was paid for by the blood of his fellow United States Citizens who died in defense of his freedom. He enjoys the right to go to work in a free society because his freedom came at a justified cost. If someone were to break into his home and threaten his family you can bet he'd be on the phone crying to the evil police, who carry deadly weapons, to come and save his pacifist back end.

 

The reason we have "serious problems that need to be addressed' is because ours and all governments are run be flawed human beings. So what is different than from the beginning of history? Ours is as good as it gets within the framework of fallen man, although we need to go back to our founding.

That has nothing to do with an individual coming to salvation. Civil government has nothing to do with that, except we have freedom of worship, which makes it easier. It is in the nature of Christians to influence government using their rights. That does not make it a theocracy. We are a republic.

 

I don't see any difference in our views here. We seem to agree.

 

Are you old enough to remember when all the blacks attended separate schools from whites?

http://afroamhistory.about.com/od/schoolintegration/ig/School-Integration/


After the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Brown v. Board of Education (1955) that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, the desegregation of schools began. While some speedily abided by the Court order, other schools were slow in implementing change. For example, as the following photographs show, Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas resisted by closing the school.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. Do you want for me to answer questions addressed to you?

 

Some desegregation turned out to be awful for the students because of the travel distance to school. So not all of it was good. So I wanting to know more about what you meant. However I did not grow up in the south and there was never segregation anywhere I lived nor in any of the churches. Where I lived there were many immigrants and many languages spoken. So to see differences was no big deal to me. I went to school with students from many different nationalities. To this day segregation is impossible for me to understand.

 

Let me tell this story:

I grew up in the South--West Tennessee, mostly--and from the first day of kindergarten to my last day of college, I never went to school with a person of color.

I was immersed in the segregationist culture, as was everyone else. Even as a child, there were some nagging little inconsistencies with Christianity as I understood it, but mostly I accepted the premise.

When integration did come, I found it easy to accept it. It just seemed right.

Fast forward to the 1990s. I had begun to write about my life so my grandchildren would have some idea about what made their grand-dad click. I wrote a chapter detailing how I grew up in the South--the usual stuff, separate restrooms, back of the bus, separate water fountains, separate everything. I read this to my grandkids, ages 11 and six. When I finished, my granddaughter said, "Grandaddy, that's the craziest thing I've ever heard."

"Yep," I replied. "It was crazy. But that's the way it was."

I think most whites in the South would like for all this to be put behind us and move on. But for the younger generation, they need to know what it was like. I'll guarantee you our African-American friends will never let their children and grandchildren be ignorant of those times

I just realized that this really has little to do with the church-state question. Sorry for chasing the rabbit. But I stand by my point.

 

I just want you to answer the question. You spoke volumes with your silence.

 

This is the point I'm making. Can't you understand? So many Christians think it's more important to change the civil government than to win converts to Christianity. What does placing the Ten Commandments in the (civil) court room have to do with furthering the Kingdom of God? Nothing. Aren't we agreeing on this?

 

I answered the question. What else are you looking for? Oh, the usual hassle. I told you why I wasn't on line for a while. Do you work a full time job (more than full time actually)? Do you go to church on Wed. night?

 

Who are these Christians? This is more of your weak hyperbolic characterization otherwise known as a straw man.

 

I agree it is not the main way in which we spread the Gospel. That is done through the local church and witnessing as the Lord leads. However, I don't understand your objection to Ten Commandments in the courtroom. It does no harm. If one is not a Christian, he or she can look at it as a document that is part of the basis of our law. What harm does it do? Who knows, maybe someone in the courtroom looking at it will be drawn to the Lord.

It should be natural for Christians to use their rights to influence their government in a positive way. Why do you have a hard time understanding this is not a tool to bring people to salvation, and that we are not a theocracy because we petition our leaders about our views? The main purpose of Christian influence on government has more to do with how things in our country go and the fate of our country.

 

Most of you on this web site for starters.

 

I never agreed with reciting the so-called Lord's Prayer or reading scriptures or inviting a local minister to give a message in public schools. It goes against the principle of separation of church and state. We open doors for government to act on us. I also disagree with accepting government benefits called tax relief or tax receipts, property tax exemptions and anything that links the church to the state.

Bad enough that we, in Canada, are government employees in performing marriage!

Cheers,

Jim

 

In one state I know about the Mormons have gotten in on the idea of having religion classes during school time.

 

So now it is on you to either prove that most of us on this site think it is more important to change the government than make converts or repent of your false witness. And just how would you know what most people on this site think? you have not been on this site long enough to know that. Or have you JC?

 

Christian influence on the government is good. The church aligning with a political party is bad. Giving preference to one religion over another in a free country is bad. All of these are examples of rendering unto Caesar. None of them have anything to do with living in God's Kingdom.

 

AMEN !!!:thumbs:

 

I will agree with you on that point. As far as I am concerned, the two present parties were born in the pits of hell. My opinion is anyone who thinks there is a difference between the two has a very poor perspective on government and history.

 

A good example is when the Christians in Germany supported Hitler not knowing everything they should have. It was the Christians who ran Keil & Delitzsch out of the country for their views on creation. It was the Christians who fired Whitsitt for teaching the same things then, that Baptist historians teach today.

Any politician knows that Christians are the largest group of same thinking people who tend to communicate and read. Publishing companies know that it is the Christians who read the most. So it should not surprise us when politicians target Christians and appeal to them. If we fail to know the Bible then we wil fail in knowing where we should stand.

Form what I have read on BB it was some of the Christians who thought it wrong for Senator Grassley to lead the way in investigating some of the TV ministries because of the complaints from those who gave to those ministries.