On the division of church and state

I've recently talked about the division of church and state in a more general sense, encompassing the divergence of long from short term interests, but since this issue is such a political football in the United States today, I'd like to set some things straight.

I appreciate Daniel Davis' YouTube channel, mostly because his guests respect him and he doesn't turn his interviews into a show either. However, his argument here is missing the point.



Whenever you fall back on an established view that isn't held anymore, you are missing an essential transformation. Now, the view here, that earthly authority is bestowed from above, is, in its original sense, an eternal truth, but that sense deviates from the moral imperative, that is, it is stoic and states that the true alone stands the test of time and hence a stable order can't be all wrong. The moral imperative, however, asks for compliance and is thus stabilising even an awful order.

That is the traditional Christian view though, not withstanding that Jesus might well have been stoic when he told Pilate: Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

According to the traditional Christian view, Attila is the scourge of God and the Vikings were a scourge of God. Self-flagellation is still going on in Iran, but nobody holds that traditional Christian view anymore, for otherwise somebody wouldn't take offense when confronted with the statement that Adolf Hitler was a scourge of God.

So, I don't believe that Daniel Davis is that somebody, but rather that he's lazy when invoking that view, that is, that he means something else, something weaker: not that it's wrong to ever impose one's morality on those in power, but that Christianity flourishes most readily when staying in its own sphere.

This little extra effort in stating the thesis pays off handsomely when asking the question why anybody would seek to abolish the division of church and state, for now it's not any longer about dogmatic heresy, a lacking trust in an eternal guidance that in earnest nobody considers as such, not even a practicing pacifist like an Amish, who trusts man's love of peace and not just any order, but about a collapse of the respective spheres, a change in their interplay that creates problems that ask for a structural change.

Having seen this kind of thing over and over, I've stated that those in power will always defend the way they govern by its historic achievements, repeating ad infinitum how its different parts all work together in perfect harmony, and, seeing this now in Daniel Davis' case, I'll add that they're wont to elect perspectives that don't even allow them to intellectually follow criticisms of it.

I prefer to be cautious when it comes to stating what other people thinks though maybe because of that I'm more qualified to do it than anybody else, so right now I'll leave it at that. However, generally speaking, and not about Daniel Davis in particular, let me point out that when the kingdom of heaven is supposed to be otherworldly, again, when Christ says: My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. he might very well mean that it hasn't been established just yet, but is still in its conceptual state from whence Christ rules, sticking to one's own sphere is the safest way to get there, for everything is morally clear there, whereas, when God's will be done on earth as in heaven, the results here on earth matter and we have to risk moral ambiguity at times.

Anyway, as for my personal sphere, I don't really have one and neither can I conceive of one. Mainly I'm aware of the degree of my understanding - and that of other people - and my entire life, and the life of all humanity as I see it, is to delve into the truth so as to walk in it.