Separation of Church and State!

Tagline: “Have I missed something here?”

Out of the mouths of babes come great truth. “Tominaz” writes over at Gairney Bridge:

The state needs to keep its hands off church matters.

Meanwhile, “pastorvon” laments:

If this ruling is allowed to stand — I must be careful here because I have not read the ruling — no church court will be able to function according to its Form of Government or Book of Discipline. … If the State can say that an action of a Church court is void, then no person will be able to be disciplined for sins that they have done.

I don’t get it. Forgive this recent convert to the Cause of the Commission, but have I missed something? Do we want a separation of church and state, or do we not? All these years we’ve been hoping for prayer in schools and Christ-centered education and on and on, but now tominaz and pastorvon need the state to go, get out of here, we don’t want you in our business! You’ll understand my confusion.

Ironically, the decision to uphold the injunction is the exact opposite of what pastorvon fears. The argument of the Plaintiff was that Synod broke the bylaws of the college and the denomination – that trustees cannot be removed without cause. The argument of the Defense, as argued by Wingate, was that trustees can be removed according to SC law.

In other words, the Defense argued that the State justified the actions of the Church (i.e. they are not separate). Yet the judge rejected this argument and said that there was a partial separation of church and state; the judge believed that Church law stood over State law and that trustees could not be removed without cause.

So men who probably disagree with the separation of church and state in the public schools, and who argued in court that the State and Church were not separate because State law stood over Church law, now argue that the church and state need to be completely separate.

In other words, not only are these comments contradictory to what I presume the authors believe about the rest of society, but they are contradictory to their own Defense in court.

Am I the only one confused here?

New Motto: “Oppose Separation of Church and State in favor of prayer in public schools, Ten Commandment displays, & etc. Except in cases of Church exercising authority over a “mother/child” relation (Erskine College), where separation of church and state does not apply because State law is over Church law, unless State law conflicts with what Church members want to do, in which case separation of church and state is absolute.”

Which out of the mouths of babes becomes: “Give me what I want, or I’ll take it by force.”