Random thought about the separation of church and state

[y2gordo]

Sitting here thinking about current events and their larger meaning, and a thought occurred to me.

We know from mathematics that saying "A and B" is the same as "B and A".

So, would the concept of "separation of church and state" therefore imply "separation of state and church"? There's a subtle difference between the two in terms of who is the oppressor and the oppressed. The church cannot control the state, nor can the *state* control the *church*. Obviously, today we are way too focused on the separation of "church and state", but I think it's because people don't realize that the reverse is also true.

Thank you education system.

Anyway, just had the thought, it made sense to me in a late-night profound sort of way, and I thought I'd share it.

Now, I am going to bed.

///@\\\

[rabscuttle385]

So, would the concept of "separation of church and state" therefore imply "separation of state and church"?

The statements are logically equivalent.

[guitarplayer1953]

Actually I think that the statement separation of state and church is the better statement. Because it more conveys the idea that the state can not interfere in the church or elevate one church over another. It puts the burden on the state rather than on the church.

MANY WHO CHOSE TO FOLLOW GOD AT THE 11TH HOUR GENERALLY DIE AT 10:30!!!!

[ThePythonicCow]

Like most phrases (ab)used by the Left, logic won't help much to understand their meaning.

Separation of church and state has come to mean "keep Christianity and similar religions out of the public arena." The real affect is that secularism (whether open atheism or muddled moderate Christianity in name only) has become The State Religion. Any explicit expression of Faith, other than a few that are so embedded in tradition as to be nearly invisible, is chased out of the public square. This is contrary to the Constitution, of course, which asserts that there shall be no state religion.

[Celtman]

Where to start.

First of all, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, and any imagined difference between "separation of church and state" and "separation of state and church" is quite irrelevant. 

What the Constitution does say is that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ...

In other words, there shall be no State sponsored church.  This is a one sided proposition; it restricts the power of the Federal government, but places no restrictions whatsoever on religion.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

And moreover, the Federal government is explicitly restricted from interfering with the practice of religion.  No law can determine, restrict, or affect in any way, an order or practice of worship.  This is another one-sided proposition; it restricts the power of the Federal government, but explicitly prohibits any restrictions whatsoever on religion by the government.

The government cannot regulate religion.

On the other hand, the Constitution also says,

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The people, on the other hand, have the right, and the duty to regulate government.  This applies equally to people of faith and to atheists. 

But Christians also have obligations to the Lord.  In the words of John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty ... of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

This in no way conflicts with the Constitution, or with any right-thinking interpretation of the Constitution, or with any rational philosophy of government.  Any imagined conflict with the phrase, "separation of church and state," is irrelevant.