Freedom of Religion

[Thunderian]

Nope. You said:

Who cares if someone gets offended? As long as the practice of a religion doesn't break any laws, there's no reason to place any restriction on it.

This clearly suggests that the boundaries of religion should be decided by laws that assumingly the state creates.

I meant reasonable laws. Did I have to specify that?

 

[Artful Revealer]

So basically the empty glass is the institution that receives power and the emptiness is the volume or range of power the institution can attain. If I understand correctly, both the state and the church are glasses that are inherently self-limiting in terms of power when separated. But if they are truly separated, that would mean neither has any form of control over the other, hence neither can limit the freedom of the other to define law according to its own belief and will, yet at the same time you argue that separation is required for these institutions to restrict one another. The idea of counter-balancing institutions that are separate yet limit each other in power doesn't seem to be a coherent one. To illustrate your point, could you give an example of how the power or accumulation of power of the state is limited by its separation from the church?

 

[rainerann]

So basically the empty glass is the institution that receives power and the emptiness is the volume or range of power the institution can attain. If I understand correctly, both the state and the church are glasses that are inherently self-limiting in terms of power when separated. But if they are truly separated, that would mean neither has any form of control over the other, hence neither can limit the freedom of the other to define law according to its own belief and will, yet at the same time you argue that separation is required for these institutions to restrict one another. The idea of counter-balancing institutions that are separate yet limit each other in power doesn't seem to be a coherent one. To illustrate your point, could you give an example of how the power or accumulation of power of the state is limited by its separation from the church?

Yes, the state cannot tell you that you are going to hell when you receive consequences for stealing. However, the complexities of why this is important are beyond what I have spent a whole lot of time considering. I did recognize this myself as I was typing out my illustration of water glasses.

I am interested to hear how you would suggest that authority should be handled if we do not distribute power to create boundaries.

 

[A.J.]

There is a lot of discussion about freedom of religion. Having freedom of religion has created new cultures where people can identify with different spiritual beliefs within the same community sharing the same national identity. This has created many benefits for people and has allowed us to immerse ourselves in different cultural practices without experiencing the same hostility for having different spiritual beliefs.

However, are their boundaries to freedom of religion and can a religious organization step outside these boundaries that allow for this precept to be effective? Many people seem to believe that freedom of religion means that all religions are essentially the same, but they are not. Doctrine can differentiate the nature of the religion creating varying degrees of damage to the principle of freedom of religion itself.

For example, many years ago there was a religion in Canaan that required child sacrifice to a God named Molech. Would a religion worshipping Molech deserve to be given the same treatment under freedom of religion as someone who practices Hinduism?

If we can determine that a religion that requires child sacrifice does not deserve the same rights under freedom of religion, we can prove that boundaries exist for the precept that are determined by the doctrine of the religion. We can also prove that not all religions are equal and essentially the same. The similarities and differences of any religion are determined by their doctrine, not their identity as a religious organization.

There are only 2 religions

 

[A.J.]

Let me explain.

One-ism:

Worship of creation grants to all created forms the same divine quality. If everything in creation can be worshiped, then everything must share the divine nature. Everything is One.

Two-ism:

Worship of the Creator implies that reality is divided into two types of being, as Paul teaches—the transcendent, uncreated eternal Creator, and finite creatures. Everything is Two.

There are no other possible religions.

According to Paul, there are only two pure, radically opposed, irreconcilable religious systems. You cannot practice both at the same time!

The truth may be simple, but people are complicated. They hover inconsistently between these two possible worldview trajectories. Satan is the most consistent One-ist. Jesus was the only true Two-ist.

But, you will say, What about Two-ist Jews and Muslims? Alas, anyone who denies the personal Trinitarian Creator becomes a practical One-ist, worshiping an impersonal, unknowable singularity.
https://truthxchange.com/2011/11/only-two-religions-that-cant-be-true/
"Peter Jones has no peer in exposing the bankruptcy of the New Age and Neo Gnostic thinking. ...become aware of how this New Spiritualist thinking is negatively affecting our every day lives.”
— R. C. Sproul, Founder and Chairman of Ligonier Ministries

 

[rainerann]

Let me explain.

One-ism:

Worship of creation grants to all created forms the same divine quality. If everything in creation can be worshiped, then everything must share the divine nature. Everything is One.

Two-ism:

Worship of the Creator implies that reality is divided into two types of being, as Paul teaches—the transcendent, uncreated eternal Creator, and finite creatures. Everything is Two.

There are no other possible religions.

According to Paul, there are only two pure, radically opposed, irreconcilable religious systems. You cannot practice both at the same time!

The truth may be simple, but people are complicated. They hover inconsistently between these two possible worldview trajectories. Satan is the most consistent One-ist. Jesus was the only true Two-ist.

But, you will say, What about Two-ist Jews and Muslims? Alas, anyone who denies the personal Trinitarian Creator becomes a practical One-ist, worshiping an impersonal, unknowable singularity.
https://truthxchange.com/2011/11/only-two-religions-that-cant-be-true/

Very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

 

[DesertRose]

Dropping in for a sec. to highlight something due to the comment quoted below.

But, you will say, What about Two-ist Jews and Muslims? Alas, anyone who denies the personal Trinitarian Creator becomes a practical One-ist, worshiping an impersonal, unknowable singularity.

(DR: When humans are in a state of God consciousness we try to live up to and rely on these ideals/attributes of God (Justice, Mercy, Peace, Kindness etc.) and we then 'know' our Creator. We rise above the level of ego and fixating on what makes us feel good.
To 'know' God we should change ourselves into better people and live with God consciousness.)
https://www.whyislam.org/allah/god/names-and-attributes-of-allah/
"Allah has described Himself in the Quran through His Names and Attributes. Muslims believe that studying these Names and Attributes is one of the most effective ways of strengthening one’s relationship with God. Each Name and Attribute nourishes a kind of consciousness and humility in man and their study leads one to constantly better their actions."

http://www.islamforchristians.com/ultimate-truth-god/
"All attributes of greatness, magnitude, majesty and grandeur should be ascribed to the Creator of this universe. Such attributes are derived from the observation of the greatness of creation around us.

For example, God should be the Creator of everything. He should not have been created by anyone else. (Al-Ma’idah 5:17)

God should be Almighty, All-powerful, Omnipotent, Eternal, Immortal, and Omnipresent (Al-Baqarah 2:284) (Aal `Imran 3:26) (Aal `Imran 3:189) (Al-Furqan 25:58) How come the Creator of all people is killed or crucified by a few people? (John 19) (Matthew 27:32-56) (Luke 23:26-43)

God should neither beget nor be begotten. (Al-Ikhlas 112:1-4) (An-Nisaa’ 4:171) Otherwise, we will have the above dilemma of multiple gods. (Luke 2:1-20) (Matthew 1:18-25)

God should be Self-sufficient. He should not need to eat, drink or go to the toilet. (Al-Ma’idah 5:75) God should not need anyone, but everyone should need Him. (Fatir 35:15) (Muhammad 47:38)

God is worthy of worship and prayer by everything. (Matthew 4:9-10) (Al-Baqarah 2:83) (Al-Anbiyaa’ 21:25) (Al-Baqarah 2:133) He should not worship or pray to anyone else. (Mark 1:35) (Matthew 14:23) (Luke 6:12) (Luke 23:34)

God should be able to benefit or harm all creation. (Al-Ma’idah 5:76) All creation should not be able to benefit or harm Him. (Matthew 27:46)

God should be the one who sends people to Paradise. (Al-Ma’idah 5:72) He should not be sent to Paradise by anyone else. (Luke 23:43)

This is the truth about God. This is the Lord of this universe Whom we all should worship alone without any partner. This is God, no matter how different the names that may be given to Him. This is God, Allah, or Dieu. We should not care for names but for attributes."

 

[Artful Revealer]

Yes, the state cannot tell you that you are going to hell when you receive consequences for stealing. However, the complexities of why this is important are beyond what I have spent a whole lot of time considering. I did recognize this myself as I was typing out my illustration of water glasses.

I am interested to hear how you would suggest that authority should be handled if we do not distribute power to create boundaries.

I'll try not to let my aversion for the state (as it is today) influence my reasoning.

I'm understanding you better now. Separation of powers to avoid a monopoly on power, got it. This is the philosophy behind the separation of the legislative, executive and juridicial branch of government, but I'm not convinced the same principle applies with the government and the church. I'm not sure if there should be any distribution of power to begin with since the distribution would inevitably be in the hands of someone / something doing the distribution. If someone / something has the power to distribute power, he or it actually has the power. It then makes sense to me that there shouldn't be any power in charge of distributing power.

The separation of church and state wasn't initiated or prompted by the Church and why would it? It's against the interest of the Church to have its power and influence over the state diminished or abolished. Therefore the separation of church and state had been invoked and executed by secularists and statists. It's basically a power grab of the secular state. For me the state entity has always been the true threat of accumulating and monopolising power. Let's take a church for instance. We can treat a church, as long is it not integrated with the state, as a private entity with its own laws that apply only to the people who are member of that church. If one doesn't want to be subject to those laws, or if someone doesn't want to pay his tithes, he can just unsubscribe from that church. He can join another church or remain unaffiliated. This wouldn't be possible with the state. It is by definition a monopoly of power since it is a singular organism that governs all people of a community and no one can decide to change state without moving somewhere else, to decide not to pay taxes lest he'd live as a hobo without declared income or property. When the church mingles with a state it will grow in power, if the state is separated from the church, the state still grows in power while the church does not. We can observe this today. Either way, the state grows in power.

How would I handle the distribution of power? I don't think there should be a power to distribute power, hence I don't think there should be a state.

 

[KoncreteMind]

I meant reasonable laws. Did I have to specify that?

Then you'd have to explain what or who defines the "reasonable" laws to and not to follow... Same problem is still there either way bud...

 

[Todd]

@rainerann is your church a 501c3 organization?

 

[mecca]

Governments should never be controlled by a single religion. Separation of church and state is important for religious freedom.

 

[rainerann]

@rainerann is your church a 501c3 organization?

What are you suggesting by referencing the tax exemption?

 

[Thunderian]

Then you'd have to explain what or who defines the "reasonable" laws to and not to follow...

Not to normal people, I wouldn't.

It used to be that laws were based on the ten commandments. I feel like that's a good guideline.

 

[Todd]

A 501c3 corporation is an entity of the state. If your church is 501c3 (and most in America are) then the state has authority over it. Can a preacher endorse a candidate from the pulpit of a 501c3 church? No, so the state is already censoring the church.

FEMA is already recruiting and training pastors from 501c3 churches how to counsel people during crisis situations and they are using Romans 13 as the basis for it.

Every 501c3 Church is at risk of being taken over by the gov’t during a national crisis. My point is that there is no separation of Church and State in the USA.

 

[rainerann]

I'll try not to let my aversion for the state (as it is today) influence my reasoning.

I'm understanding you better now. Separation of powers to avoid a monopoly on power, got it. This is the philosophy behind the separation of the legislative, executive and juridicial branch of government, but I'm not convinced the same principle applies with the government and the church. I'm not sure if there should be any distribution of power to begin with since the distribution would inevitably be in the hands of someone / something doing the distribution. If someone / something has the power to distribute power, he or it actually has the power. It then makes sense to me that there shouldn't be any power in charge of distributing power.

The separation of church and state wasn't initiated or prompted by the Church and why would it? It's against the interest of the Church to have its power and influence over the state diminished or abolished. Therefore the separation of church and state had been invoked and executed by secularists and statists. It's basically a power grab of the secular state. For me the state entity has always been the true threat of accumulating and monopolising power. Let's take a church for instance. We can treat a church, as long is it not integrated with the state, as a private entity with its own laws that apply only to the people who are member of that church. If one doesn't want to be subject to those laws, or if someone doesn't want to pay his tithes, he can just unsubscribe from that church. He can join another church or remain unaffiliated. This wouldn't be possible with the state. It is by definition a monopoly of power since it is a singular organism that governs all people of a community and no one can decide to change state without moving somewhere else, to decide not to pay taxes lest he'd live as a hobo without declared income or property. When the church mingles with a state it will grow in power, if the state is separated from the church, the state still grows in power while the church does not. We can observe this today. Either way, the state grows in power.

How would I handle the distribution of power? I don't think there should be a power to distribute power, hence I don't think there should be a state.

Interesting, so you are suggesting that the church would exist as independent smaller entities that would compete in almost the same way a business competes with other business because you could lose church members depending on whether they are satisfied with the service?

The only problem is how do you prevent centralizing power within the church and one church gaining power over a larger area?

The reality is that there is power and that it will becomes focused towards a single entity. We can see this throughout history from the different structures of government whether they are monarchial or theocratic. Therefore, you can't deny that power exists and that we have to find a way to distribute it so that the potential of oppression is oppressed.

When we consider the role of theocratic government, we are looking at a role that can create a lot of spiritual damage. A legal system that can impose spiritual consequences as well as legal consequences can very quickly lead to an abuse of power.

Most religious organizations believe in spiritual consequences that are not always defined by a law. You can break a spiritual rule without any evidence that is commonly used to convict someone of stealing or some other crime. Therefore, you can basically subject people to the belief that they are guilty without requiring any evidence if you serve in the role of a spiritual position in combination with a government role.

More than likely, this is the greatest consequence of a theocratic system, and a theocratic system is going to have a lot more power than the most centralized state will ever be able to acheive. Therefore, it may be that we are seeing the state continue to accumulate power right now, but they will only be able to truly become king if they can combine this state with a system of religion.

It would become a beast at that point so I think it is important to recognize why a freedom of religion has worked in the past. It doesn't work because religion is passive or neutral or that they are all essentially the same thing with slightly different particulars. It works because of the way power is distributed creating boundaries that prevent oppression through the medium of religion.

 

[rainerann]

A 501c3 corporation is an entity of the state. If your church is 501c3 (and most in America are) then the state has authority over it. Can a preacher endorse a candidate from the pulpit of a 501c3 church? No, so the state is already censoring the church.

FEMA is already recruiting and training pastors from 501c3 churches how to counsel people during crisis situations and they are using Romans 13 as the basis for it.

Every 501c3 Church is at risk of being taken over by the gov’t during a national crisis. My point is that there is no separation of Church and State in the USA.

Your going to have to support this with some sort of documentation. The 501c3 tax exemption means that churches are prevented from endorsing political parties or participating as a political entity. This does not create a conflict with the precept of freedom of religion. A church is not supposed to gain profits either that they should be taxed as a corporation.

I don't see where this becomes a mandate that pastors can be drafted for FEMA. I need something that would support what you are trying to say. 501c3 is an exemption many organizations have. The Red Cross is a 501c3 organization and the government cannot madatet them to go where there is a disaster.

Pastors serving in disasters would be serving by their own volition in the same way the Red Cross does. If the government could mandate the red cross because they get a tax exemption, we wouldn't need FEMA to begin with.

 

[Todd]

Your going to have to support this with some sort of documentation. The 501c3 tax exemption means that churches are prevented from endorsing political parties or participating as a political entity. This does not create a conflict with the precept of freedom of religion. A church is not supposed to gain profits either that they should be taxed as a corporation.

I don't see where this becomes a mandate that pastors can be drafted for FEMA. I need something that would support what you are trying to say. 501c3 is an exemption many organizations have. The Red Cross is a 501c3 organization and the government cannot madatet them to go where there is a disaster.

Pastors serving in disasters would be serving by their own volition in the same way the Red Cross does. If the government could mandate the red cross because they get a tax exemption, we wouldn't need FEMA to begin with.

Churches are already tax exempt without 501c3 status. I’m on cellphone right now but I will dig up documentation later for you.

 

[A.J.]

A 501c3 corporation is an entity of the state. If your church is 501c3 (and most in America are) then the state has authority over it. Can a preacher endorse a candidate from the pulpit of a 501c3 church? No, so the state is already censoring the church.

FEMA is already recruiting and training pastors from 501c3 churches how to counsel people during crisis situations and they are using Romans 13 as the basis for it.

Every 501c3 Church is at risk of being taken over by the gov’t during a national crisis. My point is that there is no separation of Church and State in the USA.

And that's a major problem. The founders should have, if they in fact didnt, saw the Church as above & beyond the state. The state has no authority, moral or otherwise, over the Church. Unless the Church is apostate and heretical in word, act or deed.... I understand im promoting the ideal. But the alternative is religious humanist new age gnostic spiritualism as state santioned religion and Oprah as pope.... No thanks!

 

[A.J.]

Dropping in for a sec. to highlight something due to the comment quoted below.



(DR: When humans are in a state of God consciousness we try to live up to and rely on these ideals/attributes of God (Justice, Mercy, Peace, Kindness etc.) and we then 'know' our Creator. We rise above the level of ego and fixating on what makes us feel good.
To 'know' God we should change ourselves into better people and live with God consciousness.)
https://www.whyislam.org/allah/god/names-and-attributes-of-allah/
"Allah has described Himself in the Quran through His Names and Attributes. Muslims believe that studying these Names and Attributes is one of the most effective ways of strengthening one’s relationship with God. Each Name and Attribute nourishes a kind of consciousness and humility in man and their study leads one to constantly better their actions."

http://www.islamforchristians.com/ultimate-truth-god/
"All attributes of greatness, magnitude, majesty and grandeur should be ascribed to the Creator of this universe. Such attributes are derived from the observation of the greatness of creation around us.

For example, God should be the Creator of everything. He should not have been created by anyone else. (Al-Ma’idah 5:17)

God should be Almighty, All-powerful, Omnipotent, Eternal, Immortal, and Omnipresent (Al-Baqarah 2:284) (Aal `Imran 3:26) (Aal `Imran 3:189) (Al-Furqan 25:58) How come the Creator of all people is killed or crucified by a few people? (John 19) (Matthew 27:32-56) (Luke 23:26-43)

God should neither beget nor be begotten. (Al-Ikhlas 112:1-4) (An-Nisaa’ 4:171) Otherwise, we will have the above dilemma of multiple gods. (Luke 2:1-20) (Matthew 1:18-25)

God should be Self-sufficient. He should not need to eat, drink or go to the toilet. (Al-Ma’idah 5:75) God should not need anyone, but everyone should need Him. (Fatir 35:15) (Muhammad 47:38)

God is worthy of worship and prayer by everything. (Matthew 4:9-10) (Al-Baqarah 2:83) (Al-Anbiyaa’ 21:25) (Al-Baqarah 2:133) He should not worship or pray to anyone else. (Mark 1:35) (Matthew 14:23) (Luke 6:12) (Luke 23:34)

God should be able to benefit or harm all creation. (Al-Ma’idah 5:76) All creation should not be able to benefit or harm Him. (Matthew 27:46)

God should be the one who sends people to Paradise. (Al-Ma’idah 5:72) He should not be sent to Paradise by anyone else. (Luke 23:43)

This is the truth about God. This is the Lord of this universe Whom we all should worship alone without any partner. This is God, no matter how different the names that may be given to Him. This is God, Allah, or Dieu. We should not care for names but for attributes."

I will agree to disagree....

 

[Todd]

@rainerann

Section 508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that churches are not required to apply for recognition of Section 501(c)(3) status in order to be exempt from federal taxation or to receive tax deductible contributions. Churches are automatically exempt from Federal income tax, and contributions to churches are deductible by donors under section 170.

I don't have time to find all the documents and put everything together, so here are some links if you want to look into it yourself.
Disclaimer: I don't agree with every conclusion made on these websites and I'm not trying to convince you that 501c3 churches are from the devil (even though one of the sites below is). Just wanting to give you something to think about in terms of seperation of Church and state and the general direction our country appears to be heading with regard to that.

http://www.churchfreedom.org/usc-26-§-508c1a/
https://comingintheclouds.org/christian-resources/church/unbiblical-incorporation/
https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in Government/Police State/501c3_unbiblical.htm
http://hushmoney.org/501c3-problems.htm\
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/501c3.php