Thank you for your gracious apology. My post was in no way intended to be a shot at the Catholic church. The Catholic church has a very rich tradition and it is indeed the mother of the Christian church. I was simply trying to explain some of the roots of the differences between the Catholic and Anglican churches as NYer and Siobhan had requested. I was not suggesting that all in the church were corrupt. The truth is that there were many schisms within the church itself, often originating with clerics and monastics within the church who saw the corruption that was prevalent at various times in history. This is not widely disputed even within the Catholic church itself.
Yes, I did mean the founding fathers of the U.S. And granted, there was a lot of interdenominational bickering and persecution. What a lot of people don't realize, or in some cases choose to ignore, is that the idea of the separation of church and state was never intended to prevent the practice or appearance of religion in a public venue. Quite the contrary. Prayer, sermons and public displays of faith were all commonplace until more recent years. It was a matter of keeping the government from adopting as preferable one denomination over another and religions other than Judeo-Christian were never figured into the equation. I would go so far as to say that it was intended to keep us from being subjected to the very kinds of things that we are dealing with today...attempts to abolish the one true God and His Son, Jesus Christ, from the public arena.
Anyway, I apologize for not making myself clearer. I do not find it in any way productive to bash any fellow believer's church. Our true fellowship comes from partaking in the death and resurrection of Christ. The Scripture says that it is not edifying for believers to indulge in the strife of tongues (loosely paraphrased). We have common enemies that we would do better to focus our energies on.
The truth is that there were many schisms within the church itself, often originating with clerics and monastics within the church who saw the corruption that was prevalent at various times in history. This is not widely disputed even within the Catholic church itself.
You must mean the "Great schism" of 1054 and the Reformation of the 16th century? Other than that, the only "schisms" I know of are in part, the schisms of Anacletus, Henry VIII, the Jansenists, Old Catholics, Novatians, Arianism, Meletius, Donatus, Luciferians.... none of whom left due to corruption in the Church. So I don't agree that your statement isn't widely disputed within the Catholic Church.
Yes, I did mean the founding fathers of the U.S. And granted, there was a lot of interdenominational bickering and persecution. What a lot of people don't realize, or in some cases choose to ignore, is that the idea of the separation of church and state was never intended to prevent the practice or appearance of religion in a public venue.
Oh! I thought you wrote that the following: Of course, while laughable, it is exactly that kind of abuse that occurred when a corrupt church was in effect married to a corrupt state and the very essence that sparked the protestant Reformation. This was also the basis for the founding fathers adamant opposition to the establishment of a state church. - so I am kind of confused why you answered the way you did. It sounds from your above statement that you are saying "because of a corrupt Catholic Church, the founding fathers were adamant in their opposition to a state church."
I guess I'm being picky tonight ;-)