IF YOU CAN'T QUESTION IT, IT'S NOT SCIENCE

Is There really a wall of separation between Church and State in the US?

If you looked at the decision in the Emerson case (1947) you would think so because in a 5-4 decision they created it. Justice Hugo Black used a decision from 1879 in the Reynolds case to bolster his point.

Chief Justice Waite stressed the metaphor's authority in his opinion: "Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of [religious liberty,] it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."

Note only did they take a founding fathers word for something out of context, this was not a reference to a declarative law or part of the Constitution rather it was Jefferson’s way of using a metaphor that the Government was not going to interfere with the Church.

In a Jan. 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, then-president Thomas Jefferson highlighted the “wall of separation” metaphor previously utilized by Roger Williams, who had referred to the “wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world”

How today, if you asked people on the streets of any large city in the US you find out that many people believe that the Separation of Church and State appeared in the Constitution. Brothers and sisters, it did not.

Now, you may ask why introduce this topic when you are writing an article about the Church and Science? The answer is very simple- to many people there is exist a Church and Science and today I would like to show you that this is no more true than the 1947 court case.

For most of the last part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, there appeared to be a conflict between the Church and Science. Some people have turned to Science to answer their questions. Before you do this maybe we need to relook at exactly what science really is and how we come up with science.

Today questioning does not appear to be at the same forefront as it once was when it comes to the field of Science. In fact if you question the controlling thought of the day and dare to come up with a different conclusion when observing the same information- you are cancelled. This brings up two questions

What is science?
Why is questioning important when it comes to the field of science?
First, what is science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is:

"knowledge attained through study or practice," or
"knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
Second, science is based on human observations and then the use of the scientific method. Please note that this methodology requires testing or questioning.

Observation and formulation of a question: This is the first step of a scientific method. In order to start one, an observation has to be made into any observable aspect or phenomena of the universe and a question needs to be asked pertaining to that aspect. For example, you can ask, “Why is the sky black at night? or “Why is air invisible?”
Data Collection and Hypothesis: The next step involved in the scientific method is to collect all related data and formulate a hypothesis based on the observation. The hypothesis could be the cause of the phenomena, its effect, or its relation to any other phenomena.
Testing the hypothesis: After the hypothesis is made, it needs to be tested scientifically. Scientists do this by conducting experiments. The aim of these experiments is to determine whether the hypothesis agrees with or contradicts the observations made in the real world. The confidence in the hypothesis increases or decreases based on the result of the experiments.
Analysis and Conclusion: This step involves the use of proper mathematical and other scientific procedures to determine the results of the experiment. Based on the analysis, the future course of action can be determined. If the data found in the analysis is consistent with the hypothesis, it is accepted. If not, then it is rejected or modified and analyzed again.
Now that you have a much better understanding of the role of science let us try to apply to a recent article about how it relates to the concept of Church and Science.

Today to emphasize the warfare that is currently taking place in left wing media about religion and science, I would like to bring out this article. The story is not about the Catholic Church, but it easily could be. The story is an excellent piece of media trying to take down the Church (religion) with some interesting Science.

On Dec. 27, 2021, the liberal American newspaper, The Armenian Spectator published the following article entitled: Patriarch of Istanbul Spreads Falsehoods

About Covid, Under the Guise of Religion

In October 2021, the Patriarch of Istanbul, Sahag Mashalian, delivered at the Holy Hovhannes Church in the Kumkape district of Istanbul a very strange sermon full of conspiracies and fear-mongering statements. His anti-scientific and irresponsible words were intended to deter his parishioners from getting vaccinated against the coronavirus, thus endangering their lives.

The patriarch began his sermon by referring to the following passage of the Book of Revelation: The beast “forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name…. That number is 666.”

Here are excerpts from the Patriarch’s bizarre sermon which I have translated into English:

“And whoever will not have this seal [of the beast] will not be able to do any business, will not be able to travel, [and] will not even be able to eat bread…. Therefore, placing a technology chip in our body, on our hand or our forehead, we understand that it is the symbol of perfect control. This means that wherever you go, they will know where you are. Whatever information exists about you will be in it [the chip]: your illnesses, your relationships, your condition, [and] your bank accounts. It will all be in it. Your health will be in it. And without it, you will not be able to do anything. And, of course, this will be presented to us as progress, as a technological advantage. And sometimes we will willingly take this chip.

“These are no longer theories. In certain European countries, this system has started. What will we do? What will we be? When the time comes, they will compel us to have such chips in which it’s written 666 or the name of that son of Satan. What will we do? Christians have always spoken about this topic as a musing that it will happen in the future. People in the future should think about it. But it has come now. It came to our doors. In a few years, at the latest in the year 2030, this development will become a reality.

“What will we Christians do? Our church leaders, the Primates, should speak about this issue which they do not. But the faithful at the bottom of the church speak because the prophecy is so explicit, the word of God is so clear that it is spoken about. And what will happen when the leaders of the church, the Primates, those with the rank of Bishop do not talk about it, when the people at the bottom speak about it, then this will be spoken about in an exaggerated and redundant manner? The church has a doctrine called eschatology. It is the knowledge of the last days. In our faith we say that Christ shall return. This is an integral part of our faith. Therefore, the doctrine of the church, in a clear manner, should elucidate this topic to the Christian communities.

“Christian leaders should get together and speak about this issue, while it is still early. After these things happen, it will be too late. We should now come together and talk. Church and bishopric meetings should be held about this topic now, while we are still free and have the ability. In a few years, we will not have that ability. As a Patriarch, I call upon my people and church leaders to get interested in this topic and blow the horn. Because in the Bible, for us, for Christian leaders, there is a dreadful statement. By the mouth of prophet Ezekiel God says: I appointed you a watchman over this people. If you see the sword, the danger, and do not sound the alarm, and the sword comes, then their blood will reach you. But if you sound the alarm and say that the sword is coming, take precautions, and if they do not do that, the sword comes, then you are free of their blood. Therefore, for Christian leaders, a topic that is redundant or exaggerated, when Christian leaders come together and speak about a topic that is considered shameful, can speak about it. I commend those who listen to us and my people within the reach of my voice: the day has come! We can no longer anti-scientific and irresponsible words postpone the eschatology. We are obligated to apply the healthy doctrine in our days, spread the faith and acquire the means to see what we can do….”

To show that the Patriarch’s alarming words about vaccination are not based on religion, all we have to do is refer to the statement issued by the Catholicos of All Armenians, Karekin II, about the vaccine.

According to a recent dispatch by Azatutyun.am, “The Armenian Apostolic Church dismissed religious reasons given by its believers refusing to be vaccinated against the coronavirus.” The Church’s Supreme Spiritual Council stressed that “vaccination does not pose a spiritual danger.”

The Church also announced that Catholicos Karekin II and many other clergymen have been vaccinated.

I hope Armenians will listen to the advice of the Catholicos and not that of the Patriarch of Istanbul regarding the coronavirus vaccine to save their own lives as well as the lives of those around them.

Please note that this was a newspaper article- not an opinion piece. It uses language such as anti-scientific and irresponsible plus the claim that it was endangering lives. Now, this may be a good opinion piece, but was it a news story? It may be true but is that why we have our own individual free agency just to walk lock step with everyone else? This is a great piece to point out the media bias and how scientific many of these very liberal journals have become more of attack organs against religion. They try to take on religious issues head on using science- or what they report to be science.

However, let us learn from this and apply some logic here. Science is basically created by human observation, formulating a hypothesis and then questioning those hypotheses. Is this what is done here? When you never question your hypothesis, can you truly call it science?