Is separation of church and state a myth...

God gave us free will. Who is the government to restrict that?

Having an official state religion doesn't necessarily means you're physically coerced into practicing it.

Your mental handicap may prevent you from understanding this, but the American uniparty dragging their rotten hides to church on holidays is for the benefit of the voter, almost none of them believe in God. Also it's funny that you ascribe the greed of (((them))) and their allied corporations to religion when it's just irreligious greed for material possession (just like you're consumed with, faggot!). Also lumping us in with desert demon worshippers is typical atheist dishonesty.

Lastly, if you think most poverty is caused by greed, rather than being the normal state of nearly everyone through all history, you may want to:

a) Grow a dick and stop being a faggot

or

b) Stop posting everywhere forever, to prevent people wasting there time on your idiotic and useless opinions. Just imagine if 200 people saw your post and thought about it for a minute? That's over three hours wasted on the drivel of an imbecile, you should be ashamed to waste people's time like that.

North Korea is a good example of a secular society taken to it logical conclusion

Having no knowledge of geopolitics what so ever.

Lee the stupid religious peoples fault. Come on dude lol.

Attached: ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ha ha ha.jpg (543x960, 47.16K)

No, it's real. The concept of freedom of religion at the foundation of the U.S. can be traced further back to the Rhode Island charter of 1663 as a political concept. The separation of powers in this regard can be brought from the Bible by reading about Romans 13, which concerns the "higher powers" and "powers that be."

We see a separate sphere of influence for civil law and church assembling, the latter of which should be voluntary, and church discipline extends as far as being kicked out of the church (see 1 Cor. 5, especially verse 13). Many who objected to the imbalanced taxes imposed by the puritan state church in Massachussetts went to found the Rhode Island colony to get away from the entanglement of church and state, when they ought to have separate capacities and functions according to the New Testament.

This found its way into the United States code later.

I think it's evident there are none. The state representatives should be held to higher standards by their own people. By all means support and enforce the agreed Christian values for the law of the land in the United States, as we did before a bunch of foreign jews and other atheist clowns started "reinterpreting" what was centuries-old established law.

For instance, bring back the freedom of association. No business should be forced to engage with any customer, no party should be forced to include any member.

Imagine having this little understanding of geopolitics and human nature that he reduces all the problems of the world to
I think this proves that atheist must have the lowest iq.

Attached: DWyRNafU8AE9M3a.jpg (1200x1000, 173.7K)

It's heresy as defined in the syllabus of errors in the 19th century. There should be no separation

Attached: 6841f39b2074f477ec0a6d2185881f1d55257de545932da493b967a951c22487.jpg (3840x2160, 1010.92K)

Absolutely abhorrent

Can someone explain the Dark Ages meme? Was there one or not?

Italian nationalism. Rome/Italy was the center of everything, the source of enlightenment. Then it collapsed and was nothing for a thousand years. Then during the Renaissance it became the center of culture again. So some Italian guy called the bit in between the Dark Ages, and the term was a hit with fedora wearers everywhere.

Separation of Church and state was a meme made by the Masons, don't trust it

Isn't separation of church and state a heresy? Americanism?

Keep them separate.
It keeps the church from getting interfered by and in political crap, and whenever regimes do stupid shit, the faith gets smeared by proxy(in my country, fedoras have blammed our lack of hospitals and roads on the state helping several years ago build a national cathedral)

For crying out loud, look at apostolic threads, and you still see people bitching over politico-religious decisions of empires that have been dead for centuries and millennia.

It preserves the Church from corrupting itself by taking in people who are nominally Christians but are ignorant of the meaning of Scripture, whether truly or willfully, but feel like calling themselves out of either a sense of civic duty, or in a bid for political power or simply because they want a cushy job. It keeps hypocrites out and keeps the churches clean. There are enough problems with religious institutions as they are, and very often only because of such hypocrites, so taking in more of the same people would only multiply them a thousandfold.

The only real reason for a closeness or even a full-blown union between Chuch and State is if the faithful among the laity would be in true danger otherwise.

The thing is, governments always end up trying to govern the Church. Separation of church and state originally meant the state had no power to control the Church but (((some people))) have long since twisted the meaning so that Christians can't practice their faith in the government.

And that's a terrible thing.

The problem is that is 'political crap' finds its way into the Church regardless if they are separate from the State or not.
See Vatican 2 if you dont believe me

Even if it would worm it's way into the Church in any case, there's no reason to accept full-blown union without reason. That's chucking away the medicine and embracing the disease. That is pozz.

But there would be a reason to combine Church and State. To secure the existence of our people and a future for Christian children.

They would keep each other in check. The Church would check the State on moral issues (making sure the state doesnt pass legislation that promotes degeneracy) and the State would check the Church on legal issues (assuring they practice what they preach). It would also bar (((dangerous people))) from taking power in the government as only a member of the Church would be able to hold office assuming this would still be a democracy and not a monarchy Keeping both separate only allows said (((dangerous people))) to infiltrate one or the other to corrupt it from the inside.

The idea is to stop the state from dictating religious practice, in return the church won't dictate policy. This worked great because everyone went to church so democratic policy was based on the majority population of Christians; and even if the government did enact unchristian law, such as legalization of prostitution, or alcohol, or abortion, everyone knew it would be immoral to exercise the freedom to do so.
Today everyone forgets the separation of church and state is a two-way street, and thinks it means the government MUST pass bills that regulate allowed church activity such as gay marriage, "hate speech," and in some cases, punishing indoctrination into Christian faith at a young age (looking at Norway here.)
It's all a big mess and I'm not really sold on the idea of Theocracy, but I government out of the church asap

I've already covered this to the extent I've deemed appropriate when mentioning the need to protect the laity from being oppressed on account of their faith and have nothing further to say on the topic.

Have you ever heard of Byzantium?
We're still dealing with the headache of their politicians supporting various factions, and it didn't take (((idiotic memes))) for it to happen.

Sort of, depending on what we mean by "separation".

It's clear however that separation insofar as it goes against the state being governed by Christian moral principles is a myth. By which I mean we Christians have an obligation to support a state that legislates Christian morality, as it's made more than clear that this is the purpose of law as ordained by God.

There were never any dark ages, just a power vaccuum left after Rome fell/schismed.

Umm, no thanks.

Attached: (((Papal))).jpg (174x232, 30.49K)