News and Views
What Separation Of Church And State?
The very concept of ‘Separation of Church and State’ does not apply in Canada in theory or in practice. It is a foreign concept born and bred in the constitution of the U.S.A. and adopted in a very distorted form by the atheistic Religious Humanism which has manipulated its way into forming the religious foundation of our so-called ‘secular’ culture.
Canada’s official Head of State is also the head of a Christian church denomination. Therefore, there is no theoretical foundation for separation of church and state in Canada. Historically, throughout the world, the religion of the ruler was the official religion of the nation. This remains true in the huge areas of the world that lack a Christian heritage. Religious freedom is a result of Christianity, of the recognition that God gave us free will, the right to choose. That freedom to choose can exist with or without official separation of religion and state, and can even be hampered by rigid separation.
The original intent of the American Constitution was to prevent the government from accepting one Christian church as the official church of the nation in a position to declare other Christian groups ‘heretical’ and persecute them. This was of great concern in the young U.S.A. because, in order to escape religious persecution by the State Churches of Europe, many people in persecuted churches such as the Puritans and the Anabaptist ‘Pennsylvania Dutch’ had come to the colonies. Their purpose was to ensure freedom of choice within the Christian religion and based the American Constitution on a solidly Christian worldview. Atheistic Religious Humanism, as the current strongest representative of rebellion against God, has distorted this intent as freedom from religion, especially freedom from Christianity.
In practice, atheistic Religious Humanism as in Humanist Manifesto I has become the foundational worldview, philosophy or religion of our present society and culture to the extreme of producing immoral laws and immoral judicial interpretations of law. Innocent human life as in the pre-born, less able, ill or elderly is at great risk, while murderers are kept alive. It retains Christian terminology for its distortions of the feel-good aspects of Christian morality while rejecting and vilifying moral directives that require self-discipline in obedience to God. We have legal systems and court systems, but genuine justice is increasingly rare. Freedom and meaningful discussion is limited by political correctness and the nonsensical ideas that to disagree is to hate, and to love is to agree and accept every idea and act. Feelings and sentiment replace logic and reason. We reached this present situation through the adoption of the Educational Philosophy of John Dewey which had already begun to influence the academic world and teacher training before he signed the 1933 Humanist Manifesto I. Albertan Ted Byfield has written an excellent essay explaining how Dewey and his cohorts targeted the universities, media, bureaucracies, and mainline seminaries. By the early 1960s, this influence was such that I saw the shift from nominally Christian to post-Christian society taking place, but the fellows I studied with, especially a later provincial cabinet minister, could not yet see it. Without realizing what was happening, our governments have adopted the positions of atheistic Religious Humanism, hence no separation of religion and state in practice.
At a more profound level, this is a present manifestation of the ages long battle begun in the Garden of Eden for the allegiance of human beings. The Lord God Almighty, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, created people in His own image for loving relationship with Himself, and gave them free will, including the freedom to accept or reject Him. We rebelled, and rebellion became the default setting with which we are born. God the Son put on humanity, was born of a virgin, lived a life aligned with God’s will, took the penalty for all our rebellion upon Himself in His death, and rose again to prove His deity so that we may be reconciled to God through repentance and acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice in our place and thereby enter into eternal life beginning now and lasting in Heaven through all eternity. Those of us who live in loving relationship with God through Jesus Christ KNOW that this is fact; this is reality, this is objective truth. Because this free gift is the one and only way to enter into eternal life, to get to Heaven, it should be considered a basic human right for every person to know the Bible well enough, to understand Christianity well enough, to make an informed decision.
Atheistic Religious Humanism has become both the state religion and the religion of our classrooms over much of the past hundred years; no separation of religion and state there. Objections are sometimes made to the tradition of giving a New Testament to students once during their school years, with no discussion or answering of questions allowed, because that supposedly infringes upon separation of religion and state. However, a new question arises. With the push to familiarize all students with First Nation’s culture, there is emphasis that students understand the meaning behind ceremonies they attend, ceremonies that represent the religious roots of the culture, and that the culture and its meaning be imbedded in all areas of study. Where is the separation of religion and state in this? What is fair and reasonable?
other articlesWhy Sabbath Rest?
The Place Of Disobedience
The Place Of Obedience
The Wonder Of It All
The Bible: Its Reliability
The Bible: Its Importance
The Bible: Ways To Read
The Bible: Which Translation?
The Bible: Why So Many Translations?
When Feelings Reign
Why Aren’t We Holy?
Feelings And Control
Faith And Works
Humility: A Vanishing Virtue