#3 - Understanding the Separation? Church* & State

This post is #3 in an intended series relating to the separation of church and state.¹ The conjoining of the dogmas of a group of believers* with “state” power may be the most dangerous crisis we are now facing. Historically, church-state partnerships have presided over oppressive, soul-crushing regimes. It was a hard-fought battle to move from the persecuting dogmas of England and the early Americas² to the U.S. Bill of Rights with its freedom of religion / conscience protection. Ironically, this split of religion from state power was advocated circa 1750 years before the Bill of Rights by the rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth:

Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's (New Testament | Matthew 22:21).

A passionate, separation advocate, A. T. Jones (1850-1923), observed:

In these words Christ has established a clear distinction between Cæsar and God,— between that which is Cæsar’s and that which is God’s; that is, between the civil and the religious power, and between what we owe to the civil power and what we owe to the religious power. That which is Cæsar’s is to be rendered to Cæsar; that which is God’s is to be rendered to God alone. With that which is God’s, Cæsar can have nothing to do. To say that we are to render to Cæsar that which is God’s, or that we are to render to God, by Cæsar, that which is God’s, is to pervert the words of Christ, and make them meaningless. Such an interpretation would be but to entangle him in his talk,— the very thing that the Pharisees sought to do.

As the word “Cæsar” refers to civil government, it is apparent at once that the duties which we owe to Cæsar are civil [21] duties, while the duties which we owe to God are wholly moral or religious duties. ...

It is evident, therefore, that religion and religious duties pertain solely to God; and as that which is God’s is to be rendered to him and not to Cæsar, it follows inevitably that, according to the words of Christ, civil government can never of right have anything to do with religion,— with a man’s personal relation of faith and obedience to God.³

[Remember the distinction manifest by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego⁴? Remember Daniel and the den of lions⁵?]

But even before the U.S. Bill of Rights was ratified, Thomas Jefferson had written what became Virginia law:

‘No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; opinion in matters of religion shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect civil capacities. The rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind.’”— Id., 216.

Of this blessed result [James] Madison happily exclaimed:— “Thus in Virginia was extinguished forever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind.”— Id.⁶

In 1842, freedom of conscience was further advocated by Joseph Smith, the Prophet:

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.⁷

So what is the great danger we are facing? Could it be our failure:

1) to recognize how the “state” is presently backing a regressive, tyrannical, hypocritical, corrupting cultural / social / spiritual revolution?
2) to witness against the unholy, coercive partnership of church, cult, and state?
3) to confine and limit the state to its proper role?
4) to resist the lies and deceptions with courage and clarity? and
5) to individually render to God what is God's?

The proposed, next post in this series: #4 Understanding the Separation? the Difference Between Crimes and Sins.

------------------------------------------/
* Church is here defined as a group of believers (whether organized formally or informally) who manifest “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) which, in this writer's opinion and in its broadest sense, includes political, economic, social, cultural, religious, spiritual, and pscience ideologies or dogmas, including: socialism, communism, fascism, Gnosticism, cultism, WEFism, WOism, transgenderism, etc..
(NOTE: the congruity of the cult of Ishtar with some of today's ideologies:
“Often identified as being neither male nor female, the role of the priests and priestesses of Inanna [aka, Ishtar] was to promote the fertility of the land. If they did not have sexual intercourse, it was thought that the land would no longer produce. They served at her temple in Uruk, the principal center of worship, and at numerous other shrines and temples to the goddess throughout Mesopotamia. As the goddess of fertility, Inanna was sometimes depicted as both male and female, and was said to have the ability to transform men into women and women into men. People who did not conform to Mesopotamian gender norms were often made into priests of Inanna. Such gender ambiguity also made Inanna an accessible deity, as both men and women could identify with her.” DK. The Mythology Book (Big Ideas) (p. 338). DK Publishing. Kindle Edition; bold emphasis added.)

1. First two separation posts:
https://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.com/2023/06/a-troubling-trend.html
https://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.com/2023/07/back-to-future-again.html
2. (not to mention almost every other church-state partnership in history world-wide)
3. Jones, Alonzo. The Rights of the People: or Civil Government and Religion (pp. 17-18). Adventist Pioneer Library. Kindle Edition.
4. Old Testament | Daniel 3
5. Old Testament | Daniel 6
6. Jones, Alonzo. The Rights of the People: or Civil Government and Religion (p. 88). Adventist Pioneer Library. Kindle Edition.

Observation: Considering the nature of the natural man, Madison's “forever” is unrealized optimism.  
7. Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:11