Religion and the State
When you ask the average Christian to name any of the Ten Commandments the standard response is, "love the Lord your God," or, "love your neighbor." Yet, neither of those are featured in the Ten Commandments. The same can be said of the Constitution. Ask the average American to cite any portion of the Constitution and you'll now hear, "separation of church and state!" But, that phrase is also not featured in the founding document. Although, some would argue that the idea is found in the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
This idea is exaggerated by secularists. I would agree that there is a nebulous of collusion between Religious Right organizations and the GOP, but the creation of outrage by critics is not helpful in resolving the issue. Like most on the Left, they can tell us what they oppose, but are shallow on solutions. That's typical of reactionaries.
The abuse of some on the Religious Right now taints anyone bearing the label "Christian Conservative." But this is only because the secularists have painted with too broad a brush. Now a simple prayer at a football game is a strategic step to dominion. Start a Christian "anything" and you're labeled a dominionist, and therefore linked to a national conspiracy.
Secularists make much of the separation of church and state yet overlook basic issues of religion. Although harping back to the Constitution, they still miss many significant issues regarding the Christian view of the state.
The Religious Nature of Life
Life is inescapably religious, and religion is a system of faith or worship. Abiding within the concept of "faith" is the idea of infallibility. This is important to note since many on the secular Left espouse to be Christians. A good many of those reject the doctrine of inerrancy, or an infallible Word of God. But, infallibility is unavoidable, or inescapable, as Rushdoony often states:
In this sense, life is inescapably religious. The issue is not whether or not religion should be in marketplace, but "whose" religion will dominate the marketplace? The humanist claims to use reason in his dismissal of the inerrant Scriptures, yet he never questions the integrity of his reason. Reason is untouchable because reason is infallible. For example, it is perfectly "reasonable" that an all-powerful God could preserve a perfect written revelation, but the humanist denies this as a possibility. That would open the door to a competing god.
Modern man, therefore, begs the question by assuming what he's trying to prove. Christians do this as well. Everyone does. It's inescapable. However, as Van Til has noted, the circular reasoning of the Christian is not "viciously so."
Rushdoony argued that "the term 'church and state' simply serves to obscure rather than present the problem." He described it as a "now obsolete imperial papal debate." The medieval issue of "church and state" was not Christianity versus some form of paganism, "but who should have predominance and priority in the control and maintenance of a Christian social order." (Rushdoony, Christianity and the State, p.6)
This is not the problem today since there is no longer a Christian social order to regulate. "In no historic sense is the ancient struggle between Church and State for priority in a social order a problem in modern society." (ibid.) He continues:
Therefore, it is NOT mainstream Christianity which the humanistic state seeks to oppress. It's those who advocate Biblical law as the foundation of the human social order. That's why Dobson is dined and Judge Moore is disregarded. The difference between them is law. Dobson caters to the GOP's platform of "values" while Roy Moore points to the Ten Commandments.
The founding fathers assumed a Christian social order. That was not a mandate for church attendance. Early America was essentially Christian and therefore the Constitutional writers sought to fetter the state from establishing religion or prohibiting its exercise. Yet, the modern state has established the religion of humanism, and absorbed a theologically weak evangelicalism as its bedfellow. As Judge Moore was cast down from his Alabama seat so also will the state seek to prohibit the exercise of Biblical Christianity. This will be done in clear violation of the First Amendment, and the separation of Church and State will be stepped over as blatantly as Caesar crossing the Rubicon.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
This idea is exaggerated by secularists. I would agree that there is a nebulous of collusion between Religious Right organizations and the GOP, but the creation of outrage by critics is not helpful in resolving the issue. Like most on the Left, they can tell us what they oppose, but are shallow on solutions. That's typical of reactionaries.
The abuse of some on the Religious Right now taints anyone bearing the label "Christian Conservative." But this is only because the secularists have painted with too broad a brush. Now a simple prayer at a football game is a strategic step to dominion. Start a Christian "anything" and you're labeled a dominionist, and therefore linked to a national conspiracy.
Secularists make much of the separation of church and state yet overlook basic issues of religion. Although harping back to the Constitution, they still miss many significant issues regarding the Christian view of the state.
The Religious Nature of Life
Life is inescapably religious, and religion is a system of faith or worship. Abiding within the concept of "faith" is the idea of infallibility. This is important to note since many on the secular Left espouse to be Christians. A good many of those reject the doctrine of inerrancy, or an infallible Word of God. But, infallibility is unavoidable, or inescapable, as Rushdoony often states:
The doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture can be denied, but the concept of infallibility as such cannot be logically denied. Infallibility is an inescapable concept. If men refuse to ascribe infallibility to Scripture, it is because the concept has been transferred to something else. (Rushdoony, Systematic Theology Vol. 1, p.2)Modern man transfers infallibility to his own reason and elevates himself as supreme judge. Man's reason is perfect, inerrant, and infallible. Although a man may err in an equation, the mistake does not abrogate the infallibility of reason. This is humanism. It's the ascribing of ultimate authority to man and his infallible word.
In this sense, life is inescapably religious. The issue is not whether or not religion should be in marketplace, but "whose" religion will dominate the marketplace? The humanist claims to use reason in his dismissal of the inerrant Scriptures, yet he never questions the integrity of his reason. Reason is untouchable because reason is infallible. For example, it is perfectly "reasonable" that an all-powerful God could preserve a perfect written revelation, but the humanist denies this as a possibility. That would open the door to a competing god.
Modern man, therefore, begs the question by assuming what he's trying to prove. Christians do this as well. Everyone does. It's inescapable. However, as Van Til has noted, the circular reasoning of the Christian is not "viciously so."
To admit one's own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting point, the method and the conclusion are always involved in one another. (Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p.118)The reasoning of unbelieving man is vicious because it begins with finite man -- from which infallibility does not logically flow. The Christian reasons from God to God where infallibility is an attribute of the infinite Creator. Rushdoony understood this well:
All reasoning is either from God to God-given and God-interpreted facts, or from man to man-made interpretations of brute factuality. All reasoning is circular, but man refuses to admit of the circularity of his reasoning because he assumes that an infinite and exhaustive view of things is possible to himself, that he can, in other words, reason like God rather than as a man. (Rushdoony, By What Standard?, p.29)Church and State?
Rushdoony argued that "the term 'church and state' simply serves to obscure rather than present the problem." He described it as a "now obsolete imperial papal debate." The medieval issue of "church and state" was not Christianity versus some form of paganism, "but who should have predominance and priority in the control and maintenance of a Christian social order." (Rushdoony, Christianity and the State, p.6)
This is not the problem today since there is no longer a Christian social order to regulate. "In no historic sense is the ancient struggle between Church and State for priority in a social order a problem in modern society." (ibid.) He continues:
[I]ncreasingly, religious liberty is being replaced by religious toleration. The difference is very important. Religious liberty has meant, historically, the freedom of the church and of the believer in his worship from state control and jurisdiction. It has meant that the state cannot interfere in a sphere where it has no authority nor jurisdiction any more than it can interfere with the internal affairs of a foreign power. Religious toleration has meant that the state claims the right to govern and control religion and to declare which church or which religion has the right to exist. Religious toleration places the power in the hands of the state. (ibid.)To tout a separation of church and state is to position the present dilemma on the wrong footing. The modern issue is one of "religion and the state." Rushdoony elaborates:
[T]he real issue is not between church and state, but is simply this: the state as a religious establishment has progressively disestablished Christianity as its law foundation, and, while professing neutrality, has in fact established humanism as the religion of the state... The basic reason, however, has been the theological collapse of the churches..." (ibid. p.7)The present debate does not hinge upon church and state competing for corporate control of America -- it is Christianity versus secular humanism. The doctrine of the state is devoutly humanistic and it advocates control and limited expression for Biblical Christianity and it's binding faith. Notice I said, "Biblical Christianity." The state is quite fond of conservative evangelicalism and its sophmoric constituency. The groupthink of the Religious Right has provided neoconservatives with massive national support. How else could moral zealots like the Religious Right rant about Intelligent Design and yet remain quiet as a church mouse on eminent domain, torture, domestic surveillance, and the secrecy of the executive branch?
Therefore, it is NOT mainstream Christianity which the humanistic state seeks to oppress. It's those who advocate Biblical law as the foundation of the human social order. That's why Dobson is dined and Judge Moore is disregarded. The difference between them is law. Dobson caters to the GOP's platform of "values" while Roy Moore points to the Ten Commandments.
The founding fathers assumed a Christian social order. That was not a mandate for church attendance. Early America was essentially Christian and therefore the Constitutional writers sought to fetter the state from establishing religion or prohibiting its exercise. Yet, the modern state has established the religion of humanism, and absorbed a theologically weak evangelicalism as its bedfellow. As Judge Moore was cast down from his Alabama seat so also will the state seek to prohibit the exercise of Biblical Christianity. This will be done in clear violation of the First Amendment, and the separation of Church and State will be stepped over as blatantly as Caesar crossing the Rubicon.
