indecisive cookies!!!
Member
Separation of church and state: yes or no?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The legendary thread of separation of church and state: yes or no? (and reasons)
- Thread starter indecisive cookies!!!
- Start date
Comprehend
Res Ipsa Loquitur
No. I do not like the separation of church and state idea, which by the way is not in the Constitution. It came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist association. (if anyone cares).
I would very much rather have the first amendment govern:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
I would very much rather have the first amendment govern:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
Yes, we should have a separation of church and state. Christians, despite their majority in the US, do not own the government. (There is a phrase for that: tyranny of the majority, and it was something the founding fathers wanted to avoid.) The government does not exist to promote Christianity, but to protect the rights of all citizens impartially. It is this impartiality that is preserved by the separation.
eudaimonia,
Mark
eudaimonia,
Mark
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I would like the separation of church and state enshrined for all countries.
By the time a state creates an established religion it is too late for people of other religions to object, and they are held to account by religious laws.
The Church of England would be better of if it were disestablished, as it has a complex and unusual relationship with the Crown and Government. However un ike some established religions it does not have legal power over people of other religions.
By the time a state creates an established religion it is too late for people of other religions to object, and they are held to account by religious laws.
The Church of England would be better of if it were disestablished, as it has a complex and unusual relationship with the Crown and Government. However un ike some established religions it does not have legal power over people of other religions.
Terrywoodenpic said:
I agree - with the emphasis on "separation of church and state enshrined for all countries."
I agree with the "strangeness of the Church of England"; the thing that has always struck me is that the Monarch is the head of the Church, at the same time as our government are responsible to the Queen.
Yet, for as long as I can remember, the closest ties between the church and Government have been very lately -one incident in which Tony Blair mentioned "God" - something which apparently makes him unique as a prime Minister; the other was the Government's unease over the laws for equality in adoption.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Government should pass NO LAWS respecting a religion and atheism should be included in this group. They should not exclude religions either. They should benefit from the same protection afforded non-religious groups.
MaddLlama
Obstructor of justice
Yes. We were not a nation created to serve religious principles, or support one or many religions over another. There is no reason for religion to be combined with government.
Just because the term "seperation of church and state" is not found in the constitution, doesn't mean the idea behind it doesn't exist. You won't find the words "right to privacy", or "right to a fair trial" anywhere either. Does that mean that we don't have either of these rights? This is why interpretation is important.
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/nationalchurch.htm
Just because the term "seperation of church and state" is not found in the constitution, doesn't mean the idea behind it doesn't exist. You won't find the words "right to privacy", or "right to a fair trial" anywhere either. Does that mean that we don't have either of these rights? This is why interpretation is important.
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/nationalchurch.htm
mostly harmless
Endlessly amused
OMG!! Are we back at this again?!
They must absolutely be kept separate!
There are so many reasons why....but simply...religion has no place in government and government has no place in religion.
They must absolutely be kept separate!
There are so many reasons why....but simply...religion has no place in government and government has no place in religion.
robtex
Veteran Member
For me yes. Absolute seperation with legal and civil consquences to churches that breech the seperation.
It is funny how the word choice can influence answers to this question. If you phrase it as "seperation of church and state" more people are for the idea but if you say other phrases such as:
1) secular morality in govermental affiars
2) absense of religious morality in govermental laws
3) absense of religious inspiration in legislation
4) secular courts/secular laws
5) areligous moral codes
The numbers advocating those phrases seems to drop from personal observation. It is almost as if people equate "seperation of church and state to tyranny but than equate secular (fill in the blank) in goverment as amoral goverment not realizing that one is the opposite of the other nor realizing that sepeartion of church and state means non-religious conderation in issues of legal morality.
It is funny how the word choice can influence answers to this question. If you phrase it as "seperation of church and state" more people are for the idea but if you say other phrases such as:
1) secular morality in govermental affiars
2) absense of religious morality in govermental laws
3) absense of religious inspiration in legislation
4) secular courts/secular laws
5) areligous moral codes
The numbers advocating those phrases seems to drop from personal observation. It is almost as if people equate "seperation of church and state to tyranny but than equate secular (fill in the blank) in goverment as amoral goverment not realizing that one is the opposite of the other nor realizing that sepeartion of church and state means non-religious conderation in issues of legal morality.
Green Gaia
Veteran Member
Yes, they should be separate because you cannot incorporate one religion into the law without infringing upon the religious freedoms of other religions.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I am of the thought that some secularist have pushed the word separate, too far.
For those interested, I highly recommend this article:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28051&highlight=seperation
It gives you a glimpse of what the early fathers understood by separate.
For those interested, I highly recommend this article:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28051&highlight=seperation
It gives you a glimpse of what the early fathers understood by separate.
XAAX
Active Member
Victor said:
No, what I want is for religions to keep their personal crap out of the law books. Save yourself at your church and let the rest of the country do the same. This forced morality that is happening sickens me. Primary examples going on right now: Gay rights and Abortion. These are personal choices that should not be limited due to religious beliefs.
Let me guess Victor, do you support the catholic churches stance on allowing gays to adopt? This is an example of the opposite. No government should be able to force a church to change its policies on such matters. I don't agree with their stance but I am willing to let them make their own choice...thats all I am asking for as well.