The legendary thread of separation of church and state: yes or no? (and reasons)

[Quiddity]

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.

You've done plenty of guessing already, spare me please. Law inevitably has a moral component to it; there is no escaping it. So obviously there will be issues that we will not agree with. Really, we are no different in this aspect. You do not lose sleep over forcing pedophile laws or cannibalism and a myriad of other things, do you? Or is it just the religious aspect that bugs you?

 

[MaddLlama]

You've done plenty of guessing already, spare me please. Law inevitably has a moral component to it; there is no escaping it. So obviously there will be issues that we will not agree with. Really, we are no different in this aspect. You do not lose sleep over forcing pedophile laws or cannibalism and a myriad of other things, do you? Or is it just the religious aspect that bugs you?

Law may have a moral component to it, but what most people object to is enacting laws based on religious morality that have no moral basis otherwise. For example, the illegality of cannibalism and pedophilla is a health, safety and moral issue, however its immorality is accepted by most people in and outside of religion, and it does not favor one approach at the expense of many others. On the other hand, an issue like defining marriage to exclude homosexual couples is only based on religious morality and has no secular basis. And, it also favors one religious approach at the expense of others.

In short, if a law has a secular basis, and just happens to have a religious basis as well, that's fine. But, there should be absolutely no laws on our books that have only a religious basis. If we can make laws based on only religious concepts, then which religions get to have thier laws written in?

 

[Quiddity]

Law may have a moral component to it, but what most people object to is enacting laws based on religious morality that have no moral basis otherwise. For example, the illegality of cannibalism and pedophilla is a health, safety and moral issue, however its immorality is accepted by most people in and outside of religion, and it does not favor one approach at the expense of many others. On the other hand, an issue like defining marriage to exclude homosexual couples is only based on religious morality and has no secular basis. And, it also favors one religious approach at the expense of others.

In short, if a law has a secular basis, and just happens to have a religious basis as well, that's fine. But, there should be absolutely no laws on our books that have only a religious basis. If we can make laws based on only religious concepts, then which religions get to have thier laws written in?

Most of the ones that are being argued do have a secular basis as well. C.S. Lewis use to call the widespread agreement on many moral precepts "the Tao" and it's great that Christians don't have to defend things like murder, rape, and theft because the damage can be seen. But in some issues the affects can't be seen that easily so we are unfortunately left saying things like "change the traditional make up of the family and it will have detrimental affects on society". There is objective evidence to back us up on that and people still want their rights. So it really doesn't matter if it's got a secular basis to it at it's core cause if people want something, they are going to pursue it, no matter what.

 

[MaddLlama]

Most of the ones that are being argued do have a secular basis as well. C.S. Lewis use to call the widespread agreement on many moral precepts "the Tao" and it's great that Christians don't have to defend things like murder, rape, and theft because the damage can be seen. But in some issues the affects can't be seen that easily so we are unfortunately left saying things like "change the traditional make up of the family and it will have detrimental affects on society". There is objective evidence to back us up on that and people still want their rights. So it really doesn't matter if it's got a secular basis to it at it's core cause if people want something, they are going to pursue it, no matter what.

Well, the idea that there actually is any verifiable objective evidence for that particular issue is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. But, according to you that's ok, because even if people want something bad enough, they can fight for it, no matter who it's going to hurt. After all we wouldn't want to hurt the sensibilities of the religious. It does matter if a law has a secular basis. Without a solid basis outside of religious morals, it doesn't belong even being discussed in politics. A lot of things that religious conservatives argue have no such basis, and any of the "objective evidence" that's presented isn't really evidence at all.

If the only solid argument for a law can be found in a religious text, it doesn't belong being argued for in government at all. What's next, because it's a healthier choice, and Buddhists like it better, we should all be forced by the government to be vegetarians? It is healthier for you, and we have a large obesity epidemic. Why not make that a law?

 

[robtex]

Law may have a moral component to it, but what most people object to is enacting laws based on religious morality that have no moral basis otherwise. For example, the illegality of cannibalism and pedophilla is a health, safety and moral issue, however its immorality is accepted by most people in and outside of religion, and it does not favor one approach at the expense of many others. On the other hand, an issue like defining marriage to exclude homosexual couples is only based on religious morality and has no secular basis. And, it also favors one religious approach at the expense of others.

In short, if a law has a secular basis, and just happens to have a religious basis as well, that's fine. But, there should be absolutely no laws on our books that have only a religious basis. If we can make laws based on only religious concepts, then which religions get to have thier laws written in?

I am assuming you are reffering to the "lemon test" which states:

1) laws must have a non-religious purpose
2) show neutrality or not favor one faith over another
3) must not involve excessive entanglement with religion

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test

 

[MaddLlama]

I am assuming you are reffering to the "lemon test" which states:

1) laws must have a non-religious purpose
2) show neutrality or not favor one faith over another
3) must not involve excessive entanglement with religion

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test

Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring to. It's been about 4 years since I've taken a government class, I couldn't remember what it was called.

 

[Fluffy]

Yes we should have seperation of church and state.

To those who would not have seperation, which church would you like to see take a role in state affairs?

 

[sojourner]

Right now we don't have true separation, because the gov't. insists upon making legislation that either includes or excludes religion in any given circumstance.

The idea of our founding fathers was that we should not have a state-supported church. I agree with that. All else is fluff. We've convoluted the idea from freedom for religion to freedom from religion. That's wrong.

 

[robtex]

Right now we don't have true separation, because the gov't. insists upon making legislation that either includes or excludes religion in any given circumstance.

David, actually we aren't even close to be secular in goverment. If you look other countries, like Turkey, Cuba, Germany, Iceland which are very secular ect ect and do a country by country comparision you will see we fall somewhere in the middle in the notion of seperation of church and state. Other countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan are theocracies.

Retired Justice and secularists Sandra Day O'conner is qouted as saying this:

"Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?" Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner on the"

source:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/separation_church_state2.htm

I think that is a key question and analysis by one who is more than qualified to make such an observation. If you go through the countries one by one and view the ones ruled by religious law and those run on secular law you will I think, find two things:

1) on the average more freedom, and liberty for the inhabitants of that nation in secular countries than in theocracies.


2) more comprehensive and structed legal systems.

In regards to number 2 I read an arguement by another secularists (one who believes in seperation of church and state), where he stated by methodology alone secular laws offer a more comprehensive and consistant guide to law because faith is not a product of their design. I will never find that thread again (which isn't on rf) but I found great wisdom on that idea. Faith isn't the right tool for the job when legislating legal codes and trying to design a smooth, consistant coherient legal system.

 

[Quiddity]

Well, the idea that there actually is any verifiable objective evidence for that particular issue is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. But, according to you that's ok, because even if people want something bad enough, they can fight for it, no matter who it's going to hurt. After all we wouldn't want to hurt the sensibilities of the religious. It does matter if a law has a secular basis. Without a solid basis outside of religious morals, it doesn't belong even being discussed in politics. A lot of things that religious conservatives argue have no such basis, and any of the "objective evidence" that's presented isn't really evidence at all.

If the only solid argument for a law can be found in a religious text, it doesn't belong being argued for in government at all. What's next, because it's a healthier choice, and Buddhists like it better, we should all be forced by the government to be vegetarians? It is healthier for you, and we have a large obesity epidemic. Why not make that a law?

Are you dialoguing with me? :areyoucra Or into a vortex? Or are you speaking of a caricature of religious right-wingers? Please, just talk to me as an individual without all the baggage. It makes dialogue alot friendlier and moves things along better.

I am not arguing about things that are only in the confines of religious text. I don't want to force people to go to Church, be catholic, celebrate our holidays, and a myriad of other things. But I will fight for things I believe will have a negative impact on society. And yes, it's got some objectivity to it, but look what it get's reduced to? Your words: "is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be" The fact that you find it unclear or unimpressive is irrelavent to the core of what you said. There is secular arguments for what we believe. Whether you like them, find them impressive, or unclear is another story.

I'm actually a rather stoic Christian so the fact that I do things for fuzzy feelings is so not me. In fact, it has been my experience that the opposite is the case.

 

[Quiddity]

Yes we should have seperation of church and state.

To those who would not have seperation, which church would you like to see take a role in state affairs?

The one that can make the best argument.

 

[PureX]

Why should the views of a few rule the lives of all?

 

[PureX]

Why should men be forced to subject themselves to the ideas of an "argument"?

 

[Quiddity]

Who should the views of a few rule the lives of all?

??

 

[Quiddity]

Why should men be forced to subject themselves to the ideas of an "argument"?

What should we subject ourselves to in your mind?

 

[PureX]

Even if some religion or other did represent the truth about God, why should men be forced to follow it? Why shouldn't we be allowed to deny God if we wish? .... I mean, not even God Himself is forcing us to recognize or follow Him. So what business is it of any of us to force or coerce people to "believe" when not even God Himself does this?

 

[Quiddity]

Even if some religion or other did represent the truth about God, why should men be forced to follow it? Why shouldn't we be allowed to deny God if we wish? .... I mean, not even God Himself is forcing us to recognize or follow Him. So what business is it of any of us to force or coerce people to "believe" when not even God Himself does this?

Who's forcing you to believe in God?

 

[PureX]

What should we subject ourselves to in your mind?

Why should we deliberately subject ourselves to anything? We are already subject to countless natural limitations, and to the values and desires we create for ourselves. Why should any of us be subjected to the values and desires of a God, unnecessarily, or of other people's idea of God?

 

[MaddLlama]

Why does religion of any sort have to be part of the government? Is it possible for the government to remain purely objective? Who says that if the government stays secular, it means that everyone will have to live thier life based on humanist principles? Or is it just that people have a tendancy to label anything secular as "humanist"?

 

[PureX]

Who's forcing you to believe in God?

So a religious state would just force us to pretend we believe in it's God by making us "act as if", rather than making us actually believe it's God?