Was it a mistake to separate church from state?

Was it a mistake to separate church from state?

yes

No, not at all.

It was a huge mistake to give churches tax breaks though.

In hindsight, yes. You know what they say; "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

but what about all the blue laws? or is that a good thing that you can buy a hammer but not buy nails on a sunday?

The separation of church and state is what is responsible for our current situation. What replaced the real church is some hybrid of liberalism and marxism. The academy joined forces with the press and formed a new informal priest class that create the truth so that the people know the correct way to vote. It is a hideous system whose emphasis on materialism is destroying the very soul of men.

Yes. The state should have persecuted the jewish religions into oblivion.

It took 50 years of degeneracy and unbridled immigration to destroy the western world. Well done Schlomo, quite impressive.

Don't get me wrong, I despise religions. It's easy to dismiss religion as useless drivel that brainwashes the sheep, it's not entirely false. But the impact is undeniable, the moral fabric of this country and the west in general is directly linked to Christendom. (or whatever catholic religion it is)

And now we're just giving them money for "faith based initiatives".

The rise of the Religious Right has led to a huge decline in US religion. There have never been so few Christians in this country, proportionately.

holy shit kikes are le 56%

wtf I love kissing men now

>big nose check
>fish lips check

It was a mistake to allow Pr*testantism in the new world.

Moral fabric was never reliant on religion in this country or yours.

this is offensive

>the foundations of western societies and their constitutions are in Christian morality
But yeah, keep making up that bullshit.

>The separation of church and state is what is responsible for our current situation.
Not really, pulling the church into the cesspit of US politics in some quixotic quest to turn the country into a theocracy has done more to destroy Christianity and the capacity of people of faith to argue for alternative values than anything that could have been done from the outside.

>What replaced the real church is some hybrid of liberalism and marxism. The academy joined forces with the press and formed a new informal priest class that create the truth so that the people know the correct way to vote. It is a hideous system whose emphasis on materialism is destroying the very soul of men.
Funny how you don't mention capitalism. Pretty sure all the fucking ads on TV telling people they need to consume are more of an influence than some professors.

But whatever, keep blaming your designated scapegoats, don't question the narratives you've accepted.

>It's easy to dismiss religion as useless drivel that brainwashes the sheep, it's not entirely false
It actually is false you fucking retard. The only religion that would fit your description is Islam.

like ruth and naomi?

Not in USA or Canada. They were trying to get away from that shit for the most part.

Partially it's not clear what "christian morality" even is. Back in the times seems to pine for, it was fealty to a feudal lord and accepting your place in the great chain. Nowadays it's not letting homos joint file.

On the other hand, there is a strain in the tradition that believes in human dignity, which does have some connection to democracy.

As a leftist, I think it was. Leftism is itself a religion, and I think the government and religion should be intertwined.

The 'separation of church and state' doesn't even mean what people think it does.

That critique was cribbed from the NRx and you are telling me it is blue pilled nonsense and the real evil is the capitalists? While there is no doubt many problems with capitalism there is a relationship between the academy, the mainstream media, and the government. Those professors are the people who with the media shape our culture and they are funded by the government. In attempting to divide church and state we created a new invisible church. Even more surprising is you telling me that they are the designated scapegoat. The academy rarely criticizes itself and neither does the MSM or the government.
Business is at least accountable to shareholders and have a desire for profit which can keep them in some kind of order. Who exactly holds any power over our academics that craft our culture?

>is a relationship between the academy, the mainstream media, and the government
and the fucking corporations you mong. If you can't see the real Church of Modern America is the fucking Mall then you're a fool.

But you're too programmed, you can't see what's right in front of you.

Protip: those Marxist academics at the elite universities are paid for by donations from people who are far richer than you will ever be.

"separation of church and state" is widely misinterpreted, and the people who push the misinterpretation know what they're doing.
It didn't originally mean "separation of religion and government" but that is what it has evolved into.
In Catholic Europe, "The Church", cardinals and shit, interpreted the law, according to scripture, while "The State", the king and lords, executed the law.
But then Henry VIII broke from Rome and set himself up as head of CHURCH AND STATE. He INTERPRETED AND EXECUTED the law as King and also as head of the church.
In the American revolution the church and state were separated again in the separation of powers in the Supreme Court, the justices (the new cardinals), and the Executive, the president (the new king). The Church and State are already separated that way.
The bill of rights just says that the government can't establish a state religion, and faggots have expanded that to mean that the government can't do anything religious at all. But that is dumb. Having a 10 commandments statue and saying "under God" doesn't establish a state religion.

No. The founders knew what they were doing.

>As a leftist
>Uses the term leftism

Nice larp fascist

The biggest bullshit is these faggots know what they are doing totally in bad faith.
They simultaneous say bullshit like "Under God in the pledge brainwashes kids to be Christian" but insist that having gay propaganda in schools and media won't brainwash kids to be gay."

The separation of church and state wasn't to keep the church out of the government, it was to keep the government out of the church.

nah, cause then the jews/state would just be operating through the church and you'd have even less recourse.

Why does it matter? We do what Israel says anyway.

FPBP THREAD

JUST ANOTHER JEWISH TRICK LIKE PORN

The founders never said "separation of religion and government". "The Church" is classically the interpreters of the law, and "The State" is the executor of the law. The founders had a revolution against the British government where the king was head of CHURCH AND STATE, and in America those powers were separated into the Supreme Court and the President.
All the constitution says is that the government can't establish a state religion, and it has never tried to, but faggots like to pretend that having "under God" in the pledge somehow establishes a religion

>Having a 10 commandments statue and saying "under God" doesn't establish a state religion.
It establishes certain theologies. There's plenty of people who believe in many gods, others are atheist. They're citizens too, so there's the fairness element of it.

Plus your argument is pretty obviously one being used by people who in fact do want to establish fundamentalist Christianity as the national religion, so while you may be sincere there's plenty of reason to think you're not.

Personally, I think these fights over prayers at football games and whatnot are stupid. The real problem, and the one that the founders would have been up in arms about, is the government giving tax dollars to churches under this "faith based initiatives" program.

To be clear, it's totally unconstitutional, and it's the sort of thing that would have made the founders and earlier generations of Americans apoplectic. The only reason it's been allowed to continue is because the SC ruled that since it's not hurting anyone, nobody has grounds to sue. That's how they got around it, by literally defining it as something you can't sue over.

And to be double-clear, I think religion has a lot to offer our society. Historically it's been a great motivator of people trying to improve things. But by complexing it with the government and the political system, it becomes totally poisoned and corrupted. The religion itself becomes bad, it has bad effects, promotes bad policies, and we loose the good, to boot.

are you a shit Christian? a woman enabler? a pussy worshipping mason? an enabler of Christ killers? blame gays. ruth and naomi were compared to adam and eve. david was bisexual. born eunuchs are gays. of their mother's wombs it says. and dont apply to the marriage parable. there are no marriages in Heaven but men can marry Christ. right now. women too. but we all have spiritual bodies. the 144K are defiled only by pussies. the centurion was a fag. ethiopian? nobody knows what theyre talking about. myself included. but i dont plaster stuff like pic related on "churches". and we wonder where pedos come from. they come from serpent seed. and the sex adam and eve had

Your talking past the user you replied to. To grant your argument that the _foundation_ of morality in the west is Christian, literally says no more than that is where the ideas came from. There is no reason that something like "thou shalt not kill" has to be a religious imperative at all.
We are not perpetually beholden to religious morality just because that's where we got the ideas from. You can absolutely have a secular morality opposed to killing, for example.

Plenty of Scandinavian countries have state churches, so does the UK, but the result there is that the churches are pozzed as hell.

Separating church and state was meant to prevent the church from becoming corrupt (as it did in France, where you had atheists nobles getting jobs as bishops before there revolution to collect tithing money and pocket it) and to prevent religious civil wars (as had happened in England and across Europe). It succeeded in preventing those two things mostly. The US has held on to religion for much longer than Europe has under this model.

The issue is modernism, as it has been since the 1800s even. The modern world, industrial revolution, thinking about everything in terms of economic exchanges, urbanization, these are all things that have inextricable links to our current problems, but things continue to advance more quickly than we are able to adapt to them, leading to the chaotic situation we now face.

>The modern world, industrial revolution, thinking about everything in terms of economic exchanges, urbanization, these are all things that have inextricable links to our current problems, but things continue to advance more quickly than we are able to adapt to them, leading to the chaotic situation we now face.
We're certainly dealing with a lot of changes, but I wouldn't call it chaos. I also think there's been a serious and negative moral drift, but it's coexisting with well-established norms and habits.

I think people on the right get really upset about the gays but miss the fact that most people still think stealing is wrong, still think murder is wrong, and generally try to be nice and have a positive effect on things. But there is a clash with hedonism, consumerism, social darwinism, and so on.

I think being pro-social is healthy, and a lot of the needed balance can be restored, even in a secular context, if we frame it as a matter of emotional health. Which has the benefit of being true.

A bit more deeply, a lot of this "problem of modernity" discourse is based on Nietzsche, but Fred didn't understand or accept Darwin. In fact, having a proper understanding of Darwinism and evolution leads one, as in the case of E. O. Wilson, to understand how a lot of our religious and moral ideas are products of our evolution as a eusocial species.

While this doesn't leave us with a satisfying higher authority giving everything "muh meaning", it does at least show that we're not just doing whatever in the face of a nihilistic void: we evolved to have certain values, and not having them is as unnatural as anorexia is to the instinct to eat. We may not have a grand moral justification to eat, but we certainly have strong and clear natural reason to.

It was a mistake for the west to let in Christians and Jews.

No but pre-ww2 liberalism was

You're talking past the user you replied to. To grant your argument that the _foundation_ of morality in the west is Christian, literally says no more than that is where the ideas came from. There is no reason that something like "thou shalt not kill" has to be a religious imperative at all.
We are not perpetually beholden to religious morality just because that's where we got the ideas from. You can absolutely have a secular morality opposed to killing, for example.

Is the degeneracy not easy to see today? I mean it's pretty fucking clear queers and trans grew out of the vacuum left out by religion. It's an epidemic today.

No, but the complete perversion of it enacted by Johnson was

surely