Religion Seperate from State

[TestedNTriedNTrue]

Yes.
tulc(welcome to CF!)

Same here. We fled Great Britain because Religion being tied to politics and not in a good way either!

 

[Ringo84]

I think I have found the answer and clarification as to why we seem to disagree, because we certainly do.

How do we disagree? You believe in non-establishment of religion, and so do I. You believe that religion is a personal matter best left to the individual conscience, and so you I. We both believe in Separation between church and state.

I do not believe that the clause we have implies the principle "separation of church and state". I believe it exposits non-establishment.

Non-establishment = Separation of Church and State. That's why I'm not quite understanding the disagreement.
Ringo

 

[LUColt27]

To be perfectly honest, I'd appreciate it if the government stayed out of church, and people didn't try to make their "Religion" the book of rules for the nation to follow. Of course, this isn't just for the religions in the classical sense. I'm talking the treehuggers, animal rights activists, gun nuts, and any other group that seeks to mold the laws in their own image. Yes, we should protect the environment, help animals that need it, and be able to arm ourselves against the government or criminals (Synonym alert!). But the nation started out by a bunch of people working together, despite their differences. That's how the US got to it's highest point, and our inability to do so anymore simply shows that our downfall is near, unless we put aside out squabbles and learn to compromise. There is a happy middle ground somewhere, but people evidently don't want to work towards it. So be it.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Separating religion from the state is the only real way to treat all religions equally.

Religious neutrality is far different from religious prohibition.

 

[SquareWheel]

Well no, but religious neutrality in this context would be religious equality.

 

[bigbadwilf]

It largely depends on the religion, and the amount of influence that they have on the political process.

To give you some concept of what happens in the UK, the archbishops of Canterbury and York, the bishops of London, Durham and Winchester, along with the 21 longest serving diocesan bishops of the Church of England sit as Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords (the upper house of the UK parliament) - they are entitled to sit for as long as they hold their bishopric. They traditionally don't vote on legislation apart from when there is a tied house, but can and do speak in debates.
The remainder of the House of Lords is made up of the lords temporal (all 711 of them), who are made up of the 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (the law lords - the equivalent of SCOTUS - who also traditionally speak but don't vote), 92 hereditary peers and 607 life peers (who are appointed, as the name suggests for life), tend to be retired politicians, businessmen, academics, civil servants, former governors, often the Chief Rabbi and any number of Methodist ministers.

It's a source of endless amusement that the US, which is at least notionally secular, appears to be less separated than the UK, which isn't.

 

[chaz345]

To start, I'm an atheist. I say this now for it to be off the table, but I did register on this forum in hopes of serious and mature discussion.

I find religion an interested thing. I was brought up Christian, but much to my mothers dismay, I started doubting the ideas I was taught as a child when I was a younger teen. I'm 18 years old now, and don't believe in any god or gods. I have never used a drug, never been drunk, never caused a pregnancy, and I believe I have pretty good morals. I would like to ask a pretty simple question before getting in too deep, but this was my introduction.

In your opinion, do you believe that religion should be separate from state?

I'll leave this question open-ended to allow for more feedback.

That depends on what you mean by separate.

If you mean something similar to what the founders actually meant, in that there should be no official government religion and no preference given by the government to one religion over another then yes they should be separate.

If you mean, as seems to be the most commonly used meaning today, that you can't even have public policy that is shaped by one's own beliefs, that all influence of religion needs to be removed from government, then no I don't agree with that.

I think what I'm getting at was better said by someone else:

"All are free to believe or not to believe, all are free to practice a faith or not. But those who believe must be free to speak of and act on their belief, to apply moral teaching to public questions. " - Ronald Regan

 

[mpok1519]

no state matters should be influenced by religion.

We dont need a religion to tell us that murder, theft and rape are wrong.

 

[max1120]

I believe all religion should be sperate from government. Lets keep religion in the church house where it belongs and out of the statehouse! Further more I do not understand why we do not tax church income? Why does the church get off not paying taxs? If they want to involve themselves in government than let them, just let them start paying the tax. The constitution provides for freedom of religion it does not set up the church as a tax exempt institution.

 

[chaz345]

no state matters should be influenced by religion.

We dont need a religion to tell us that murder, theft and rape are wrong.

Where does the sense that those things are wrong originate from?

 

[mpok1519]

morality originates from the collective conscious of the people of course. =)

 

[max1120]

Chaz345

That differs from person to person baised upon that persons personal belief system, how they were raised, the culture they were raised in, and the times in which they lived. It is highly variable and one one of the reason keeping religion out of governent because mixing the two always leads to repression and violence. Just take a look at Iran and Afghanastan.

 

[chaz345]

Chaz345

That differs from person to person baised upon that persons personal belief system, how they were raised, the culture they were raised in, and the times in which they lived. It is highly variable and one one of the reason keeping religion out of governent because mixing the two always leads to repression and violence. Just take a look at Iran and Afghanastan.

Mixing the two to that extreme does. Allowing religious beliefs to shape the public debate and by extension public policy doesn't as long as we stay far away from an officially endorsed religion.

 

[max1120]

Chaz345

That is not possible because what about those who do not asscribe to any religion? What about atheist or agnostics? Dominate religions also seem to try and legislate their brand of morality on the minority. How does one avoid that? It is impossible. For example the Catholic church believes the birth control is a sin. I don't and tens of millions even many catholics also do not believe it is a sin. Should the church have its way? What about other similar issues. These can only be settled from a secular system not one that allows religion any power in government.

 

[chaz345]

Chaz345

That is not possible because what about those who do not asscribe to any religion? What about atheist or agnostics? Dominate religions also seem to try and legislate their brand of morality on the minority. How does one avoid that? It is impossible. For example the Catholic church believes the birth control is a sin. I don't and tens of millions even many catholics also do not believe it is a sin. Should the church have its way? What about other similar issues. These can only be settled from a secular system not one that allows religion any power in government.

I'm not talking about religious organizations having influence, I'm talking about individuals whose position on a given issue may be largely due to their religious beliefs being allowed to have input into the public debate based on those beliefs.

What makes the views of an atheist or agnostic, views shaped by their lack of belief, inherently more valid than my views that are shaped by my belief?

 

[allhart]

no state matters should be influenced by religion.

We dont need a religion to tell us that murder, theft and rape are wrong.

And how did you come up with that? Where do you derive your moral intellect?

 

[max1120]

Chaz345

Religious organizations will have influnce still because of thier influnce over those within thier groups. Threats of hell do wonders to make people vote a certain way. Those are the sort of things we want to avoid being used in government. It was done in the past and it held back progress for centuries and it was responsible for wars and religious percetutions around the world.

 

[mpok1519]

And how did you come up with that? Where do you derive your moral intellect?

Again; from the collective unconscious will of the entirety culmination of the conscious populous.

If 'God' told me to jump off a bridge, no, I wouldn't. =)

 

[chaz345]

Chaz345

Religious organizations will have influnce still because of thier influnce over those within thier groups. Threats of hell do wonders to make people vote a certain way. Those are the sort of things we want to avoid being used in government. It was done in the past and it held back progress for centuries and it was responsible for wars and religious percetutions around the world.

And non-religious organizations(unions for example) have similar influence. Manufactured fear of anything does wonders to make people vote a certain way. Why is it OK in one case and not the other?

 

[Risen Tree]

Look to Iran for examples and understand this ya'll. It isn't about religion it's about basic rights. Which currently rights are defined in our Constitution. Endowed by our creator. Which has given alienable rights to all people!

This is found in the Declaration, not the Constitution. Question, how many times does the word "God," "Jesus," or "Creator" appear in the US Constitution?

Believers and none believers alike. Not in like the Sherria law. Who isn't tolerant of Christianity or women rights etc. Christians,Atheists and the Muslims extremists can't all agree on different issues and all get it right. Our forefathers did, however; did GET it right! But some people domestically are shredding the Constitution up for personal perspectives, reflections and agendas! Americas New ideology is going to be the death of it! As it stands right now everyone wants to come here, but we keep this up we won't be any different than any other country of the third world!!!!!

You mean, we won't be any different than the early days of America, where we welcomed people from many different cultures with many different belief systems? You're right, we shouldn't go back to the way things used to be.

...wait a minute, let us rephrase that...

Fascism, communism, and socialism are all brothers. Pick your poison as they say. I'll stick to the Constitution. Fighting for it unto the end. Even as the people water it down with politically correctness!

Um, yeah.