separation of church and state

[freediver]

That's not a question cynik.

[JW Frogen]

That's not a question cynik.

To think, grammar is the only thing this guy has! He does not always even possess that!

The only gift Cynik has received from life and stayed in possession of is syphilis, which he did not even get from human sex?

My God there is an episode of Home and Away in Cynik’s life! Or at least a ten-minute segment.

[helian]

Also, if the government dictated a 'state religion' that would effectively be a state takeover of the church. It institutionalises the connection by giving political leaders control over the church and/or church leaders control over state institutions like law.

I don't believe America's 'founding fathers' were as equally concerned about the fate of the church as they were about the state. It was true they were aware of state persecution of the church (Cromwell in Ireland, persecution of the puritans in England), but they had also seen the result of church interference in the European states' affairs and were determined to protect the state from the church. Clerics were not elected to their positions, politicians/statesmen were and therefore the people could choose those who would govern them in a way that they could not choose Bishops.

They were generally not atheists, however. Those enlightenment men were deists (or heavily influenced by deism) and so believed in a God that created the universe, just not one that interfered in human affairs or one that ever altered the laws of physics. It was only a short hop from deistic beliefs to separation from church and state.

[freediver]

but they had also seen the result of church interference in the European states' affairs and were determined to protect the state from the church

It's not as clear cut as you make out. The 'divine right' of kings hurts the church just as much as it hurts the state.

[IQSRLOW]

It's not as clear cut as you make out. The 'divine right' of kings hurts the church just as much as it hurts the state.

So do you believe that a theocracy would is less hurtful to the state than a monarchy?

[freediver]

It would depend on the nature of the monarchy and the theocracy. There have been fairly benign examples of each, and fairly brutal examples of each. I certainly wouldn't try to make such an absurd generalisation.

[IQSRLOW]

I certainly wouldn't try to make such an absurd generalisation.

Well then, perhaps you could try to make an absurd opinion based on your views coupled with past history?

[freediver]

I certainly wouldn't try to make such an absurd generalisation.

Well then, perhaps you could try to make an absurd opinion based on your views coupled with past history?

You've stopped making sense again IQ.

[helian]

but they had also seen the result of church interference in the European states' affairs and were determined to protect the state from the church

It's not as clear cut as you make out. The 'divine right' of kings hurts the church just as much as it hurts the state.

You're forgetting Catholic nations where the primacy of the Pope included the power to excommunicate monarchs which would disenfranchise the Monarch.

In England, Henry VIII usurped the power of the pope by proclaiming himself the supreme head of the Church of England and Head of State. Supreme power was (and still is) vested in the monarch. The Church of England since then successfully grew with English state power throughout the British Empire.

It was generally much more of a risk for a monarch to live with a powerful established church and its supreme head than the reverse (unless the king has the power to depose the supreme theocrat without fateful consequences). Pope Pius IX attempted to resist the surrender of the Papal States to Italy (Italian nationalist troops were hailed as liberators from Papal oppression by the local population). The Pope retained a vestige of the Papal states thanks only to troops of Napolean III until they had to be recalled during the Franco-Prussian war. The Pope resisted to the end until resistance was futile but the Papacy did not recognise the loss of Papal territories until 1929 when the State of the Vatican City was created.

I think if you dig around, you'll find that there is unlikely to be any instance where a supreme Theocrat willingly gives up power. When they do, it's a begrudging acceptance which they would rescind if ever they had the opportunity.

The people and their temporal leaders are far less capable of determining their destiny under a Theocracy, but for the theocrat, compared to the power they have when their religious institution has temporal power, disestablishment is always perceived by theocrats as a negative.

[IQSRLOW]

Are you avoiding the question? It is simple enough.

Do you believe, IYHO that a theocracy is less harmful to the state than the 'divine right of kings" ?