Separation of Church and State

[infamous]

I'd be interested in hearing our members views on this important subject.

Do you believe in separation of church and state, and if so, why?
Do you reject separation of church and state, and if so, why?
If you believe in the separation of church and state, do you think America is following this social philosophy or not?
Taking a look at the rest of the civilized world, which countries and governments follow a similiar social philosophy and which do not?

The number one question on my mind: Is America slowly abandoning this social philosophy and becoming a country trending toward religious government or not?

I am a person of faith but I don't want my government telling me which faith I should be following........................Infy

[Tarantism]

the American law of the seperation of church and state is in grave danger, what with the hanging of the ten commandments in a corthouse in texas to the introduction of intelligent design to biology classes in Kansas. its absurd to think that there are so few people in this country who cannot accept the darwinian evolutionary theory, when moer evidence comes out every year. i think that the seperation of the church and the state is an extremely important law, second in importance to the freedom of speech.

this is a good topic, infy...

[InfiniteNow]

I am beginning to recognize more and more parellels between our current sociopolitical setup with that which caused the pilgrams to flee England and head toward this, the New World. I hate (very few things, but strongly on this) that gay marriage and teaching ID in schools has become a bigger issue to our populace than the evironment, economy, war, scientific research, dot dot dot.

I would much rather fix this system than flee to a new world, but I do feel that the religious powers are much like locusts to our government.

I want a politician to say, "I don't believe in God, but I certainly respect that you do," without it being considering career suicide.

I want more people to care again. That's when things will change.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by the United States Constitution

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is no specific mention of separation of church and state in the US Constitution. However, this does not stop even well educated people from making the claim that all aspects of religion should be barred from mention or visibility in any government matters. To me this is a highy radical view. The religious beliefs have been part of the fabric of the US since its inception. And as such they done no harm to any individual's rights. With the swell of anti-religion in the US quite the contrary has been happening. Long standing traditions are being redefined as forced religious ceremonies. Yet the recognition of religious holidays and significant events by the government is not in any fashion the same as making laws establishing religion.

What is very interesting is that people on both sides of the argument use the same letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group in Connecticut, back in 1801 as evidence for their respective arguments. On the separate side people tend to quote one line from the letter saying...

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

... and taking that to mean that the government should have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

But when read in context to the letter he was replying to you find that he was not against being religious, or the governments recognition of religion at all. When the Baptists from Conneticut wrote ...

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor...

... Thomas jefferson was in agreement with them, and was assuring them that the first Amendment did indeed protect them from the State of Conneticut establishing an official religion, which was their concern.

In typical activist style that bit of misquoting has been used ever since in an effort to change the meaning of the Constitution rather than amending the Constitution to mean something different.

So the political battle rages, and the secularists who preach acceptance and brotherhood and understanding systematically try to remove all religion from society.

I am a beliver in Freedom of Religion. And that each of us should be able to determine his own views on the topic. And while our government cannot establish an official religion, there is no restriction upon the recognition of religion, or the recognition of traditions and holidays based upon religious celebrations and holy days. And that they can be called by their traditional names by the government without that being an establishment of religion.

To me the whole argument is political posturing of the ugliest kind.

Bill

[Tormod]

I live in a country where there is a state (Protestant) church. It's an anachronism, especially in a country that supposedly has freedom of religion. Yet our kids are taught religion in state-run daycare, and in public schools. The worst part is that there is no exemptions - kids can't be taken out of religion class even if they are of a different faith (like Moslems, or Catholics).

I support freedom of religion, as much as I support the right not to have a religious faith, and it's a shame to have the government tell us (or rather, tell our kids) what to believe in. In my opinion religious education belongs in the family and should be the responsibility of the parents, not the state.

We even pay taxes to the church - whether you're a member of the state church or not. The only way *not* to pay those taxes is to join a different religious group or the national Humanist society (which I have joined simply to avoid having my taxes go to the state church - now that particular tax goes to this society, whether I like it or not).

If it were up to me I would rather not be a member of any society just because the government requires me to be. Nobody would accept it if this went for political parties, so I wonder why people accept that it goes for religion.

[Tarantism]

right on infinate! completely agreeed!

just because the christian religion has been incorperated into the laws and ideals of the United states Since its conception does not make it correct. politics ought to be completely seprate...it shouldnt even be a topic of debate. like you said infinate...there are more important matters.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by (((tartanism)))

right on infinate! completely agreeed!

just because the christian religion has been incorperated into the laws and ideals of the United states Since its conception does not make it correct. politics ought to be completely seprate...it shouldnt even be a topic of debate. like you said infinate...there are more important matters.

Tartanism, at the risk of taking this thread slightly off course, can your give me an example of a law that is less than ideal as a result of Christian influence?

Bill

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

There is no specific mention of separation of church and state in the US Constitution.

What is very interesting is that people on both sides of the argument use the same letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group in Connecticut, back in 1801 as evidence for their respective arguments. On the separate side people tend to quote one line from the letter saying...

... and taking that to mean that the government should have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

But when read in context to the letter he was replying to you find that he was not against being religious, or the governments recognition of religion at all. When the Baptists from Conneticut wrote ...

... Thomas jefferson was in agreement with them, and was assuring them that the first Amendment did indeed protect them from the State of Conneticut establishing an official religion, which was their concern.

In typical activist style that bit of misquoting has been used ever since in an effort to change the meaning of the Constitution rather than amending the Constitution to mean something different.



Bill

Just incase people were interested:

Heres the entire letter written to Thomas Jefferson
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/baptist.htm

And here is his response back to them:
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Then here is an unedited copy of what he wrote, edited and deleted in the final copy.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html

[Edella]

In January 2001, President Bush announced the establishment of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,and acording to pewforum.org,"...many find the practical implications of this idea troubling. In particular, the public expresses strong concerns about both the influence of government on particular religious organizations and the impact of religious groups on the people they are trying to help. Americans also have concerns about government-funded organizations hiring only those who share their belief."

Certainly many religious organizations have a history of helping the less fortunate,and some are quite good at it,but can (should) the government give tax dollars to religious organizations if they discriminate in hiring on religious grounds?

It seems any faith-based organization which participates in the program will eventually be forced to comply with federal guidelines,hire those who qualify regardless of religious preferences,and become in essence a secular organization just as ineffectual as federal and state programs,and lose the qualities that made them effective to boot.I'm not a religious person,but I think religious charities can be more effective,and truer to their faith by not accepting government money.Sometimes it is in the best interest of church to separate itself from state IMO.What do you think of the the faith-based initiative?

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

...and the secularists who preach acceptance and brotherhood and understanding systematically try to remove all religion from society.

I'm not aware of any secularists or secular organizations trying to remove all religion from society.Can you give an example?

[Tarantism]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Tartanism, at the risk of taking this thread slightly off course, can your give me an example of a law that is less than ideal as a result of Christian influence?

Bill

hmm. well, off the top of my head i can only think of an impending law, one that would refuse the right of homosexuals to get marrried. i will do some research though.