Separation of Church and State

[Ringo84]

I'd love to have a formal debate with someone on First Amendment religious freedom issues - specifically, the separation of church and state. Let's see if those who say there is no separation can support that assertion with historical fact and legal precedent. Let's also see whether my suspicion that I could take on anyone about church and state separation and win is correct.

Bonus points if someone comes up with a unique arguments beyond the same tired old cliches: "it's not in the Constitution", "it doesn't stop states from establishing religion", etc etc.
Ringo

 

[judechild]

Depends. Do you want to debate whether America is a confessional state? Or, rather, do you want to say that religion ought to have no public roles in America?

If you come up with the debate-propositions, I'll consider it.

 

[Ringo84]

My intention was to debate the existence of Separation itself - whether it's actually what the founders intended and whether it is a good idea for the country. However, a debate on the role of religion in the public arena usually gets thrown into the mix during discussions about Separation.
Ringo

 

[judechild]

Hm, it's too broad for my taste right now; would you, then, consider this as the debating-question:

"Christianity is a foundational element of the establishment of the United States."

Or, would you maybe prefer:

"'Separation of Church and State,' understood as 'Christianity is not a part of the foundation of the United States, and hence has no unique public role' is a principle of American law."

I think that it is inevitable that a debate on the role of religion in the public square will come out of any discussion on the separation of Church and State - since the Separation of Church and State is a question that deals with that theme.

 

[JesusMartyr]

I certainly separate myself from "state" now that I'm joined unto Christ in the Kingdom of Heaven. So worldly politics has no place in me.

 

[Lukaris]

I think the unique term "church" in the concept is outdated & discriminatory since it singles out the Christian religion for separation. What about separation of mosque, ashram, temple, synagogue, etc.? I do support the traditional concept of separation of church & state but I think the situation is much different now than 10 or more years ago. I distrust the state as guaranteeing freedom of religion for Christians.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Hm, it's too broad for my taste right now; would you, then, consider this as the debating-question:

"Christianity is a foundational element of the establishment of the United States."

I'm not much for debates, and I see what you mean about the first being too broad. But I don't think your version is quite fair, either.

How about: "The Constitution is a secular document that creates a secular government."

 

[judechild]

I'm not much for debates, and I see what you mean about the first being too broad. But I don't think your version is quite fair, either.

How about: "The Constitution is a secular document that creates a secular government."

I think that the one I had is pretty neutral, considering it has to be framed in the positive one way or the other, and my prompt does not assume that the person arguing affermative is arguing that the USA is a Christian nation or state; it simply would be that Christianity is (or is not) a foundational element. I also tried to frame it with the opposite view in the positive in my second suggestion.

I would not be able to argue the negative in the prompt you've suggested, because the Constitution is a secular document which establishes a secular government. I do not challenge the fact that the USA is not a Confessional State (unlike Litchenstein, the UK, Greece, and Monaco).

Consequently, I couldn't agree to that as a debate topic - but thank you for the suggestion.

 

[Ringo84]

My apologies for not responding right away; I've been sidetracked with discussions elsewhere.

These are all great ideas. My original intention was to have it out with those who endlessly claim that we're a "Christian nation", that there is no separation of church and state, and that separation was not the founding fathers' intentions.

However, you're bringing up some great topics for discussion: "are we a confessional state", etc. It would be interesting to see where that topic led.
Ringo

 

[judechild]

Well, like I said, I can't offer to debate whether America is a confessional state, but I can offer you a (hopefully interesting) debate on Christianity as a foundational aspect of the nation (it will involve arguing a distinction, present in modern state theory and political philosophy, between the ''nation," the ''body politic,'' and the ''state'').

Did either of my two propositions in post 4 interest you? As for the other guidelines, I'd probably suggest three or four rounds, alternating posting (though simultaneous posting is another option, especially for the opening post), with a 1200 or 1500 word-limit (too lengthy of posts aren't much fun for the readers, but 1200 words is usually enough to make a good couple of points).

Don't worry about replying right away; just let me know.

 

[pshun2404]

Well since so many are weighing in, Yes...the founding fathers intended for the State to stay out of peoples religious beliefs and practice...And Yes...the founding fathers did not want a specific religion to rule the nation or the states...

What is amiss however is the interpretation which says someone with a particular religious belief (any one, whether a Christian, Moslem, Wiccan, Hindu, Atheist) cannot enter or participate in public office or policy making (as a congressperson or Senator or President)...that would be absurd since EVERY SINGLE PERSON carries their values and beliefs with them and we should not allow this misrepresentation of separation to only allow for atheists and or secular humanists to hold these positions.

Paul

 

[essentialsaltes]

What is amiss however is the interpretation which says someone with a particular religious belief (any one, whether a Christian, Moslem, Wiccan, Hindu, Atheist) cannot enter or participate in public office or policy making

Who has supported that interpretation? Several Christian religious figures, like Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee, have run for the presidency of the US. Has anyone attempted to use the courts and the separation of church and state to prevent this? I don't think so. That would be amiss, I agree, but I think you're complaining about an imaginary bugaboo.

 

[pshun2404]

Originally Posted by pshun2404 View Post
What is amiss however is the interpretation which says someone with a particular religious belief (any one, whether a Christian, Moslem, Wiccan, Hindu, Atheist) cannot enter or participate in public office or policy making

Who has supported that interpretation? Several Christian religious figures, like Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee, have run for the presidency of the US. Has anyone attempted to use the courts and the separation of church and state to prevent this? I don't think so. That would be amiss, I agree, but I think you're complaining about an imaginary bugaboo.

No they do not use the separation clause or courts but some DO try to discredit some BECAUSE of their personal beliefs...for example...many in the last Presidential Election were voting Anti-Mormon...and even stated right to me that they would never vote for a Mormon...what makes him different? His beliefs. I do not say the government does this but individuals and groups do...

So no! Not imaginary bugaboo...just a side note...

 

[essentialsaltes]

No they do not use the separation clause

Well, that's what this thread is about.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm bumping this; I think there is potential for a couple of good discussions here.

 

[Ringo84]

What is amiss however is the interpretation which says someone with a particular religious belief (any one, whether a Christian, Moslem, Wiccan, Hindu, Atheist) cannot enter or participate in public office or policy making (as a congressperson or Senator or President)...that would be absurd since EVERY SINGLE PERSON carries their values and beliefs with them and we should not allow this misrepresentation of separation to only allow for atheists and or secular humanists to hold these positions.

Ah...but is that truly an interpretation of those who want to separate church and state?
Ringo

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I believe that our Founding Fathers intended for us to be free to worship the way we wanted to, and not have the government dictate to us who we had to worship.

That being said, I don't believe the Founding Fathers would be particularly pleased with the actions of groups like Foundation for Religious Freedom - I don't think that's what they had in mind when the issue of separation came up. Jefferson originally used the "term" in a letter where he emphasized the fact that government wouldn't establish a religion nor prohibit people from exercising their religion.

I don't think it was ever supposed to be about removing religion.

 

[bhsmte]

I believe that our Founding Fathers intended for us to be free to worship the way we wanted to, and not have the government dictate to us who we had to worship.

That being said, I don't believe the Founding Fathers would be particularly pleased with the actions of groups like Foundation for Religious Freedom - I don't think that's what they had in mind when the issue of separation came up. Jefferson originally used the "term" in a letter where he emphasized the fact that government wouldn't establish a religion nor prohibit people from exercising their religion.

I don't think it was ever supposed to be about removing religion.

Has the government removed religion in your personal life?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Has the government removed religion in your personal life?

No, and God help us if it ever did.

When I speak of removing religion, I mean in the public area, since that is actually what the debate is about.

 

[bhsmte]

No, and God help us if it ever did.

When I speak of removing religion, I mean in the public area, since that is actually what the debate is about.

If you are able to worship the God of your choosing, freely, why would religion need to be in the public arena, where it impacts people who may not share a certain faith?