• 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!

What are your opinions about the separation of church and state, and mixing politics and religion?

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-politics-is-more-prevalent-in-gop-primaries/

abcnewe.go.com said:
There’s a 2-1 division in this survey, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, on whether political leaders should or should not rely on their religious beliefs in their policy decision-making. Thirty-one percent say they should do so; 63 percent say not. Preference to keep religious beliefs out of policy decisions has ranged from 55 to 66 percent in ABC/Post polls since 2005.

Do you believe that political leaders should or should not rely on their religious beliefs in their policy decision-making?

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

infidels.org said:
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

What are your opinions about those court rulings?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Those court rulings are all part of Liberal plot to re-write history and deny we are a Christian Theocracy.
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
I don't believe politicians should depend on their religion when making decisions, but they can't really help it.

And I support those rulings.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Politics and religion have always mixed.

Most social change has been led and championed by religious people in the name of religious based ethics.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
I think the quote in my signature should clarify my feelings on the matter.........
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
I think the only way for a country to genuinely be free is with a separation of church and state. Leaders are free to believe whatever religion they like, but the rights of those who don't share said beliefs need to be protected from any possible tyranny of the majority (and therefore the elected leader).

A leader's views are obviously going to be informed by their worldview -- there's no getting around that. That doesn't mean, however, that they can impose a religious taboo on everyone else that they don't share, though.

Politics and religion have always mixed.

Most social change has been led and championed by religious people in the name of religious based ethics.

I don't know about that -- while true, it seems to me that just as many atrocities have been done in the name of religious ethics. It seems to me that the best social change has most consistently been championed by secular movements.
 

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
From the outside looking in it appears some of your politicians would appear more religious than they are to buy the vote of the evangilists. They appear to make decisions to please these groups at a cost of aggrovating other groups.

Separation will never happen with such a large amount of religious people in your country.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
From the outside looking in it appears some of your politicians would appear more religious than they are to buy the vote of the evangilists. They appear to make decisions to please these groups at a cost of aggrovating other groups.

Separation will never happen with such a large amount of religious people in your country.

I'm really curious about the future of my country for that reason -- it appears more and more, every day, to be like two divided countries instead of one. Also the number of loonies and outright idiots on all sides that willfully go out and vote despite their ignorance is alarming.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Meow Mix said:
I think the only way for a country to genuinely be free is with a separation of church and state.

Indeed, as James Madison once basically said, if a particular religion was allowed to run the show, a particular denomination within that religion could be allowed to dominate other groups within that denomination, and all other groups of people.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm really curious about the future of my country for that reason -- it appears more and more, every day, to be like two divided countries instead of one. Also the number of loonies and outright idiots on all sides that willfully go out and vote despite their ignorance is alarming.
Fear not.
It has always been so.
If anything, things are looking up for us reprobates.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
It all depends on what you mean by this.

As many discussions I've had simply comes down to: don't mix it in so far as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.

But when it comes to say stealing and such, go ahead and infringe.

Granted, one can make an argument for not stealing without religion but so what?

My only point is that this line isn't as clear as one thinks.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I am 100% for separation of church in state from both sides. Keep religion out of the government, keep the government out of religion. It works both ways, and people seem to only be half for equality and freedom, which is just hypocritical.

As for the person saying America in a Christian nation, keep dreaming. We may be headed towards Christian fascism now, but our country was made on opposite values than we hold now: equality, freedom, and democracy. The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at what this country has become and is still becoming.
 

uu_sage

Active Member
I believe in an absolute separation of church and state. Religious organizations should not be involved in running the government and government should not be intervening in religious organizations. Separation of church and state protects religious organizations and it protects government from religious influence. As Jesus said Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render to God and what is God's. If churches or other religious organizations want to collaborate with government in social service they have to play by the same rules as everyone else (diversity in hiring, not endorsing or opposing candidates, ect). Our first amendment ensures freedom of conscience for people of faith, people without a faith tradition or those of no faith. Politicians are not theologians or pastors. They are elected to be public servants.
 

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
I like this description of the separation of church and state:

The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm. A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.
(“A relentless and all-pervasive attempt to exclude religion from every aspect of public life could itself become inconsistent with the Constitution”). This Court has long recognized that the government may (and sometimes must) accommodate reli-gious practices and that it may do so without violating theEstablishment Clause. Rather, it leaves room to accommodate divergent values within a constitutionally permissible framework.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-472.pdf
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
It's an inescapable reality that every person makes decisions based on their morals and if that person happens to be religious then their morals will be heavily influenced by their religion. Separation of church and state was never intended to suppress a person's conscience and does not mean separation of religion and politics. That is different.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Quiddity said:
It's an inescapable reality that every person makes decisions based on their morals and if that person happens to be religious then their morals will be heavily influenced by their religion. Separation of church and state was never intended to suppress a person's conscience and does not mean separation of religion and politics. That is different.

If Rick Santorum became President of the U.S., and reinstituted "don't ask, don't tell" based solely on biblical grounds, would you object?
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
If Rick Santorum became President of the U.S., and reinstituted "don't ask, don't tell" based solely on biblical grounds, would you object?

I would object, but it would have little to do with the bible.

Sometimes, it's much easier to deem anything a religious person says as religious/biblical then to actually listen to the argument; it's knee-jerk reaction. Some people can't help themselves that way.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I feel so secure in that State should be separated from Church that I realize that I never quite understood the arguments for their joining. Does anyone have a reference at hand for some of the better arguments against the separation?
 
Top