There
is a distinction between the separation of Church from state
(i.e.: in any parliamentary democracy the Church does not run
the state and vice-versa) and the separation of politics from
religion (i.e.: politicians can be religious and religious
people can be politicians).
Tim
Bloedow writes:
"Church
and state are institutions and I believe in separating the two -
I don't know any Christians who want the Church to be
responsible for jailing people or to have the state appoint our
elders and leaders. But religion and politics speak of ideas and
philosophies, and I believe Christian citizens and politicians
have every right to engage our Christian values and ideas in our
culture's political dialogue"1.
The
FCP presents its policies to all people (religious or not) with
explanations that are understandable by all. Explanations based
on quotations from religious texts would generally "turn
off" anyone who is not religious or even interprets the
religious text in a different way.
The
FCP debates and defends its policies using logical, human
arguments related to the effect of its policies on society as
explained by science, logic and statistics. Some people will
recognize that the FCP policies are consistent with natural law,
others will recognize that FCP policies are consistent with
Christian philosophy or with the main beliefs of their religion,
and others will recognize that FCP policies just make sense.
The
FCP has open elections of its Executive positions. Thus it
maintains a formal separation between itself and Churches or
other organizations, without precluding membership to the FCP to
people who are members of other organizations.
- - -
REFERENCES:
[1] "The
Separation between Church and State", By Tim Bloedow,
2007, ISBN:978-0-9782942-0-5.
