Church and State − Not Church versus State

"If they hated Me, they will hate you also."

John 3:20: [Jesus said] Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.

More and more the words" written in red" are mere opinions in the todays church.

Churches are willingly going to the dark side, with endorsement of sin, rather than helping sinners repent and live righteous lives. Every clergyman who performs a gay "wedding" is slapping Christianity in the face. Non-Christians throw judgment in our faces for all sinful behavior, as though Christ's message was that humans should have no standards of behavior.

It is actually more like STATE versus CHURCH Re-0pen the arguments surrounding the "Danbury Baptists" letter Jefferson wrote that the left quite literally gives the moral equivalency of Scripture as related to the Constitution. David Barton's Wallbuilders site has a phenomenal book about this called "Original Intent"-- check out his wallbuilders.com to find it on sale--very detailed and illuminating about the historical background on this sort of matter

The idea of separation of church and state comes from England and the king's desire to divorce his princess wife and copulate with the woman with whom he was currently .... dating ... The king figured the Church interfered with his kingly wants.

Christian churches, regardless of denomination, have done much of this to themselves to become either irrelevant or morally questionable. I'll let it go at that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This amendment was considered necessary to persuade the voters of the the 13 united states to adopt the new constitution. This is because 9 of the 13 states had state-established religions. These states and the other 4 did not want the federal government imposing a federal religion. These voters would be amazed and saddened by the twisted remains of this amendment circa 2021.

#6 It was a MUCH more complicated situation than that but as a former RCC’er I know where you have obtained that simplicity and unhistorical view. The Church had granted divorces to kings before. The historical situation of the Church at the time was a power play between Spain and the Church, not Spain and England and the Pope sided with Spain. Henry’s case was that he had been pressured to marry his brother’s wife. Now...where else on this site have I seen people express disgust over a man doing that...I.e. marrying his brother’s wife??? Oh yeah! That’s right...Biden! Anyway, between that and having to produce an heir, what’s a king to do? And there was a whole lot more to Anne Boleyn’s background. She wasn’t just some concubine that fell out of some Royal bed.

With you, #5. It was never about Church running State; it was about State running Church. For example, in the colonial Tidewater states (circumstances somewhat different in each - they were independent of each other, you know), State required you to tithe the Church, and that Church was the Anglican Church. You could be Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, whatever, but the State chose where that money went. #6, what Henry VIII was doing in England had next to nothing to do with what was happening in the Germanies, the low countries, Switzerland, France, Scandinavia and even in Scotland. Henry wanted the Church in England to remain exactly as it was under the Pope, except that HE would take the place of the Pope in lands under his authority --- and all Church revenue streams would end with him, instead of going off to Rome. (Have you even been to an Anglican or Episcopal Church and wondered why it seems so ... Catholic? Those are the English and American inheritors of Henry's "reformation.") Those other countries, and even people in England close to Henry, such as his sixth wife, Katherine Paar, and his main minister, Thomas Cromwell, had much more extensive and fundamental reforms in mind.

#10 - I am a member of the Anglican Catholic Church. I learned a LOT by joining them. It has been commented to me several times that I am now more Catholic than a lot of the RCC. It is a Church that hails back to the way it was practiced before the Great Schism. From what I understand, it was Boleyn who worked with Thomas Cranmer to develop the Anglican Missle. We use the 1928 version. I feel I found a home. I never felt that way in the RCC.

The original argument was to protect the church from the state, not state from church. Too bad liberals are unable to read in context.