On the Relation Between Church and State

November 9, 2017

  

 Spirituality is a need. A need that arises from within the human heart to seek and understand that which is not concrete. As such, it is organic. It is organic just as the state should be organic. We as human beings, being higher than animals have an innate need to govern ourselves by something other than the law of nature that simply works to propagate a species or a gene pool. What else is religion if not governance of the soul? The innate need of governance within the human eventually comes to a fork in the road however. Humans realized that in all things practical and concrete a government was desirable and necessary. But such a government was not able to fill the yearning of the hearts of the people which for profound reasons we know has been set to seeking God. In accordance with a need, other ‘governing bodies’ as we can refer to them i.e. temples, synagogues, churches etc., sprang up from time immemorial. These governing bodies were set to ministering to the needs of the people that could not be coldly measured with numbers. And so the needs of the people were met both in practical matters and spiritual matters. Because the state creates and gives form to an entire people, the state must set about protecting, fostering, and developing the spirituality of the people. To neglect this duty is to neglect that which makes us human. While the state protects the religion of the people (because it has the means to) it does not concern itself with absorbing the spiritually governing bodies into its own functions due to the basic differing natures of the two as originally conceived by mankind.
 

If we look to a great teacher and philosopher (many say messiah) Jesus Christ,we find that he knew this to be true as illustrated when he was confronted by the jews in their attempt to ensnare him in his own words. They seemingly asked him a simple question; do we pay taxes to Caesar or do we not? They did this because they thought no matter what he answered they could condemn him. If he said pay taxes then that would be anathema against the jewish religion as many of the time saw it and could earn him a stoning under jewish law or could certainly alienate many of his followers. If he said do not pay then they could hang him with that as well because he would be speaking against the decree of none other than Caesar. The jews in this instance made the mistake of assuming that the state and religion were essentially one. This speaks to an overall issue Jesus raised against the jews time and again, namely that they had made the jewish religion worldly, that they had pressed the spheres of the world and the spirit far too closely together; to the point of negating any spiritual benefit derived from religion. Jesus however rightly saw that church and state are in fact two separate entities that have to be reconciled to each other in some fashion. His answer was brilliant. He asked that a coin be handed to him. He then asked whose image and inscription was on the coin. They answered that it was Caesar’s image and inscription on the coin. He then gave the coin back and said “then render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” The jews stood there thunderstruck and no one dared to ask anything further of him. Jesus here in fact declares that church and state cannot exist as a singular institution but that the church must strive to coexist with worldly government while on this earth. This wisdom is observed by the fascist state. The state does not wish to be the church and the church should never wish to be the state. When that which is concerned with the matters of the world commingles with what is concerned with the matters of the spirit, the result is that both are perverted from that which is their respective art and both suffers injury. The state simply provides a framework for the church to carry out its purpose within it and the state provides the church protection that it can never be afforded in a democracy and certainly never in a communist state. The church is never safe in a communist state for obvious reasons but it can never be safe in a democracy because those same forces that would have a communist state are allowed to freely carry out their attacks on the church through litigation, slander, subversion of all kinds, seduction of the peoples’ minds so on and so forth ad infinitum. All while the democratic state sits idly by, looking on at the criminally depraved attacking the spirit of the nation, with cold indifference. This is due to the fact that in a democracy the state hasn’t the ability to even protect itself from such forces much less any other entity that is good for the nation.

 

Someone here will raise the objection that in fact the democratic state provides a framework for the church to work within and affords them the same legal protection as any other entity and if the church is to advance its ideals then it must win on the battlefield of ideas on its own. Here we must admit that the fascist state in fact goes further than the democratic state in protecting the church in that it declares the United
States to have an official religion, in our case, Christianity. In other countries it will reflect their nation’s morals and values.

 

At this there are those who will scream separation of church and state! But ah we must here take pains to point out that such an idea is only a product of historically recent enlightenment thinking, has in fact led to the effective ruin of almost every church not in communion with the Church in Rome (though the devils beat their fists against the doors of that church for all they are worth) and that it is in fact no where to be found in the constitution. But as we have already pointed out, the fascist state does not wish to absorb and become one and the same with the church. So what hairs exactly are we splitting here?

 

The answer is that while the current system provides legal representation for all religious organizations, our current state is in truth atheistic. Even this is not an accurate way of looking at the matter. The current state is passive and therefore atheistic by default. For the current state to be positively atheistic it would first have to be conscious. It isn’t conscious however because the democratic state is essentially a dead state. Leaving the church unprotected and attacked within the national body by people consumed and seduced by a militant off-shoot of enlightenment thinking. Much the same way a deadly virus attacks the good antibodies in the human body, so do these toxins fester in the national body, constantly biting the heel of the bride of Christ, indeed attacking all that the culture historically has held as good; corrupting, corroding, and causing putrefaction in every member of that national body. The democratic state has no personality and therefore cannot concern itself with such matters. The fascist state however possesses personality and is wide awake.

 

Since the state is an organic outgrowth of the people and the state in turn gives form to this people, the state must reflect the values of the people which can be generally called culture and here specifically called religion. So these values and morals of the people embodied in their religion must be taken up by the state and enforced exactly for the purpose of the nation’s own edification. This is not to say that the state wishes to enact laws forcing a religion on someone or that the state wishes to legislate that citizens must for example say the rosary once a day in a church. The state leaves the ecumenical and dogmatic ceremonies and requirements to those best qualified to carry them out and require them; the clergy. Fascism is not a theocracy. The state extracts the basic values from the religion of the people and makes it official policy of the state wherever they are found to be useful such as the shunning of homosexual marriage.
 

Here we can really take occasion to witness the weakness of the democratic state. Many states held a vote by any citizens concerned on the banning of gay marriage. In the vast majority of those states (including California) the citizens voted against homosexual marriage. But those voices were not heard and one by one the states were forced to reverse their voted upon gay marriage bans by a cabal of marxists, activist judges and big money. It was all a charade; a farce. Perhaps more to the point, a joke. And there is your logical conclusion of democracy, an oligarchy of
communist tyrants!

 

Invariably, there will be some who ask how do you decide what religion the state will hold up as a model for all the nation? The decision is not irrational or bigoted but once again organic. The United States is historically a Christian nation and it has been on these spiritual precepts the country subsisted on, nurtured itself and grafted indelibly into its culture. We could not very well force Islam upon a nation whose spiritual and cultural fabric is so intricately woven by the religion of Christ, although to be sure, there are those who would relish to see this madness come to pass. The humble author of this piece finally saw things for what they were, read the writing on the wall, decided to take a real stand for this nation’s morality and joined the ABP.

  

Please reload