Render unto Caesar the things which belong to Caesar, and unto God the things which belong to God; thus clearly intimating that the governments were not only distinct from each other, but that the distinction should be perpetual; and that the requisitions of Caesar, or of the governments of the nations, had to do with men as citizens of the world, and that their obligation to earthly magistrates and rulers was not relaxed nor abolished by the administration of His laws. And again, that the things of God were not to be rendered to Caesar, but unto God.

Things of a civil nature, relating to the natural rights of men, were to be settled by God's own providential appointment, by human legislation; but the things aside from a respect for and obedience to earthly potentates, in natural matters, belonging to God, such as matters of faith, of conscience, of religion, were not things over which the kings of the earth had any supervision or power, and things in which His subjects were not at liberty under any circumstances, to submit to the dictation or legislation of any other than God Himself.

-- Baptist Minister Gilbert Beebe (1845)

quote:

Originally posted by agape.and.charis:
The Pharisees asked if Jesus thought it was okay to pay taxes to the Roman government, which was oppressing the Jews, as they had been conquered. In this form, they were trying to trap Him and get Him to say things on which they could take Him to the Roman governor and accuse Him of inciting rebellion.

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk.

quote:

On being asked this question, Jesus replied that things which are Caesar's should be given to Caesar. I think here He was saying that we are to recognize the God-given government authority that has been placed over us.

The Lord established two categories of things regarding Caesar (civil government)and God (religion).

The two categories of things are obviously intended to be distinct and separate. God does not have authority over the things that are Caesar's, and vice versa. Caesar has power over the temporal sphere. Christ has power over the eternal sphere. The kingdoms of this world belong to Caesar. The Kingdom which is not of this world belongs to Christ.

quote:

I also think the claim you make about Lincoln worshiping in the house of Satan is a little overboard. Yes, Lincoln did things that weren't "right" and are much frowned-upon by historians.

From the Protestant view, you either acknowledge Christ's authority in matters of religion, or you don't. As regards salvation, if you don't acknowledge Christ's authority in matters of religion, you might as well worship a demon.

quote:

...his assassination was God's judgment...

Those who claim that God favors nations who formally acknowledge him, have to explain why God favored (or at least permitted) the assassination of President Lincoln, soon after he acted to permit the formal acknowledgment of God on the nation's three cent piece.

I personally hold that God judges nations on substance, not form. If God favored form over substance, the Confederacy would have won the War of Northern Aggression.

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

--Constitution of the Confederate States of America; March 11, 1861

This message has been edited. Last edited by: FredFlash,

this American principle, by which the government abstains from all religious function, leaving the utmost liberty of religion and worship to the people, is in perfect harmony with the utterances of the great Founder of Christianity. The things of God and of Cæsar are diverse. The fear of God urges to honor the king, but the king’s command cannot constrain to the fear and service of God. The kingdom of God is within the heart, and is neither conditioned nor sustained by civil enactments. These cannot introduce a man into that kingdom, nor make him fit for entrance. Christ Himself declared, “My kingdom is not of this world,” not patterned after the fashion of this world’s kingdoms, not built on their foundations, nor defended by their arms. With the existence, the spread and the support of this kingdom of Christ, therefore, the governments of earth have nothing to do, save as they refuse to interfere with its freedom, and as they guide their own conduct by its principles of divine righteousness. Into that kingdom of Christ men enter as individuals, not as nations, in all the freedom of personal action, unconstrained by external force and subject only to the influence of spiritual motives reaching to mind and heart. It is impossible to imagine a distinction more radical or broader than that between things of this spiritual nature and the functions of civil government. To God alone is the man responsible for his religious views and practice. Under God only the man is ruler in his own mind and soul. This autonomy of the soul even God Himself recognizes and respects, not compelling by external force, but appealing to reason, conscience, and affection. Herein is the divine foundation for Religious Liberty. Its enactment by the American constitutions is but a recognition of a law of God written in the nature of truth and of man. As such it is to be reckoned as their echo of the divine will, and fully as Christian an utterance as ever fell from the lips of government.

--Sanford Cobb (1902)

http://www.dinsdoc.com/cobb-1-10.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Munro:
I saw the memorial service at Yankee Stadium live on TV and of course it can be verified on the INTERNET, that the BATTLE HYMN WAS SUNG.
This,Sir, is well-documented.

It was much commented at the time that even the RABBIS and relgious of other faiths sang as well as many people with no religious ties. It was sung out of respect and love for our country.

In Memorials The Battle Hymn was played at the funerals of Robert F. Kennedy, Winston Churchill, and U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Gerald R. Ford.

Judy Garland sang the song on her weekly television show in Novemeber1963 as a tribute to John F. Kennedy, who had died just that week.

"The Battle Hymn was played at the conclusion of the National Service of Prayer and Remembrance on Friday, September 14, 2001. "

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/2001091


There is nothing unusual about the BATTLE HYMN BEING PLAYED AND SUNG in public ceremonies and it is a good example of civic religion, patriotism and voluntary nondenominational pubic prayer.

A prayer is spoken, sung or silent. It is an act of reverence or address that invokes God or a god or gods in words or thought. I love the Battle Hymn of course because it reminds me of great Americans and patriots who died to make this country free not only in 1862 but in 1917, 1942, 1952, 1972, 1991 and today. I appreciate its sincere religious feeling but consider it primarily a patriotic song.

A funeral service conducted by the government is one of those instances where civil government and religion come into "legitimate" (as distinguished from "contrived") contact with each other.

The object of the 9/11 memorial service in Yankee Stadium, as best I can tell, was not designed or intended to be an of exercise civil authority over religion. I was not in attendance, but I understand that all (or at least several) religious views were expressed, not just that of the majority.

The test is not whether religion and government came in contact with each other. The test is whether the civil authorities were trying to assume authority over the religious views of those present.

quote:

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson’s intent.

Regardless of whether the earlier Supreme Courts “understood Jefferson’s intent”, the U. S. Supreme Court did not, as is claimed by David Barton and other “liars for Christ”, gather the meaning of First Amendment’s religion clauses from President Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists. Instead, the Supreme Court, in the case of “Reynolds v. United States” (1878), construed the religion clauses according to the generally accepted rules of Constitutional interpretation, at the time the First Amendment was adopted.

In 1833, the great U. S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story believed that the difficulty that had arisen in public discussions on the meaning and intent of the U. S. Constitution “had its origin in the want of some uniform rules of interpretation, expressly or tacitly agreed on by the disputants.” Justice Story believed it would be useful to “have some fixed standard, by which to measure its [the Constitution’s] powers, and limit its prohibitions, and guard its obligations, and enforce its securities of our rights and liberties.” In his great work, “Commentaries on the Constitution”, published in 1833, Justice Story “endeavor[ed] to ascertain… the true rules of interpretation applicable to the constitution” believing that “if these rules are correctly laid down, it will save us from many embarrassments in examining and defining its powers.”

Justice Story, citing William Blackstone (1723 - 1780), wrote in the chapter of his “Commentaries” titled “Rules of Interpretation” that, “words [in the Constitution] are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use” and that “if words happen to be dubious, their meaning may be established by the context, or by comparing them with other words and sentences in the same instrument.” If the context does not provide the meaning of the words, Story advises us that, “illustrations may be further derived from the subject-matter, with reference to which the expressions are used.”

The word "religion" had more than one “general and popular use” in 1789 when the First Amendment was written. Therefore, its meaning in the establishment clause was “dubious” [ambiguous]. “If words happen to be dubious”, Blackstone wrote, “their meaning may be established by the context.”

The general context of the word “religion” in the First Amendment’s establishment clause is, of course, the U. S. Constitution and its “Bill of Rights.” The Constitution does not provide an explicit definition of the word “religion”, nor does the “Bill of Rights.”
However, the Constitution does establish “a limited government”, “defines its authority” and grants “no power … to Congress over religion."

The Constitution also provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." According to Justice Story, “Its object was, “to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government.”

The immediate context of the word “religion” is the two clauses in the First Amendment to the Constitution addressing, “an establishment of religion” and “the free exercise of religion.” The immediate context provides no information to aid in establishing the meaning of the word “religion”, except that “an establishment of” and “prohibiting the free exercise” of “religion”, are exempt from Congress’ law making authority. We therefore, must conclude, as the U. S. Supreme Court did in 1878, in the case of “Reynolds v. United States”, that “ The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain it’s meaning.”

Justice Blackstone has suggested, and Justice Story has endorsed Mr. Blackstone’s. suggestion, that if the meaning of a dubious word cannot be established by the “usual and most known signification” of the word in question, or by its context, “the intention of a law is to be gathered from illustrations… derived from the subject-matter [other writings on the subject of “an establishment of religion”], with reference to which” the word is used.

The Reynolds Court believed that the most appropriate place to search for “other writings on the subject” of “an establishment of religion” and “the free exercise thereof”. was, "the history of the times in the midst of which the provision [the First Amendment] was adopted".

Two years prior to the framing of the First Amendment, Mr. James Madison of Virginia prepared a famous petition on the “subject-matter” of “an establishment of religion”. Mr. Madison’s famous “Memorial and Remonstrance” of 1785 was widely circulated and signed. The Reynolds Court believed that Mr. Madison had “demonstrated 'that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,' was not within the cognizance of civil government.” We may safely conclude that the first time the U. S. Supreme Court confronted the problem of defining the word “religion” in the First Amendment it adopted, or at least strongly approved of, Mr. Madison's definition of “religion” as "the duty we owe to our Creator."

Substituting the phrase "the duty we owe to our Creator" for the word “religion” in the establishment clause yields an “expanded” construal of the religion clauses, that reads,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of the duty we owe to our Creator, or the free exercise thereof.”

The Court reached this enlarged interpretation of the religion clauses with no allusion whatsoever to President Jefferson’s famous 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists. The Court then cited another writing from “the history of the times in the midst of which the provision [the First Amendment] was adopted” as authority for the principles that:

To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion [regarding the duty we owe to our Creator] …at once destroys all religious liberty,

It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles [regarding the duty we owe to our Creator] break out into overt acts against peace and good order.

Both of these principles of religious freedom came from the 1786 Virginia Act Respecting An Establishment of Religious Freedom. The Court declared that, in these two fundamental principles “is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.”

In other words, any intrusion by civil government into the field of opinion regarding the duty we owe to our Creator instantly destroys all liberty regarding that duty; and civil government has no legitimate right to interfere with the duty we owe to our Creator until beliefs and opinions regarding our duty turn into overt acts against peace and good order.

Both principles were adopted with no mention whatsoever of President Jefferson’s famous 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists.

The U. S. Supreme Court did not, as is claimed by David Barton and other “liars for Christ”, gather the meaning of First Amendment’s religion clauses from President Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists. Instead, the Supreme Court, in the case of “Reynolds v. United States” (1878), construed the religion clauses according to the generally accepted rules of Constitutional interpretation, at the time the First Amendment was adopted.