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

[Shadow Wolf]

Mixing religion and politics is a potentially very nasty combination. When religious morality becomes law, other denominations may become obstructed in their practice and others might loose out on a right they shouldn't.

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?

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, IMO, have some of the best.

 

[Muffled]

Link Between Religion and Politics is More Prevalent in GOP Primaries - ABC News



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



What are your opinions about those court rulings?

I beleive the court has believed the concept of separation of church and state as opposed to believing in the constitution.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I support the separation of Church and State. At the same time, I would question the value of any religion that did not influence one's politics.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you see any contradiction in that, Jayhawker?

 

[Muffled]

I think the quote in my signature should clarify my feelings on the matter.........

I believe the wall has chinks in it. Let us take for instance Obama's decision to make Catholic hospitals provide birth control. According to the court all he is doing is making a secular decision to protect health care. As far as religious organizations are concerned the government is writing a law that prohibits them from practicing their religion.

 

[sandandfoam]

Church and state should and must be seperate.
I find it hard to imagine how ones belief (or lack of) could be seperated from ones politics.

 

[Muffled]

Fear not.
It has always been so.
If anything, things are looking up for us reprobates.

I believe it will be a pyhrric victory. As the saying goes if you make your bed, you have to lie in it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe the wall has chinks in it. Let us take for instance Obama's decision to make Catholic hospitals provide birth control. According to the court all he is doing is making a secular decision to protect health care. As far as religious organizations are concerned the government is writing a law that prohibits them from practicing their religion.

That conflict does exist, but it is often presented as a far bigger and more controversial matter than it truly is.

The plain fact is that it is not possible to accomodate for each and every religious group that exists, and it is foolish to try. At some point, sooner rather than later, any government that attempts to do so will meet unreasonable demands.

Instead, it falls upon the religious groups to acknowledge, adapt to and, yes, attempt to influence the laws of wherever they exist - exactly as everyone else.

It does not require secrecy, either. People are entitled to oppose birth control without demanding religious exception. Accomodation for the convenience or special needs of minority groups can be demanded without resorting to matters of belief. Not everyone will be satisfied, but I don't know that it is possible to satisfy everyone in the first place - and the disadvantages of differentiating on the basis of religious belief far outweight the very significant advantages of refusing to do so.

 

[LuisDantas]

Church and state should and must be seperate.
I find it hard to imagine how ones belief (or lack of) could be seperated from ones politics.

I often find myself wondering how you deal with the strong idea of a religious government in Islam, Stephen. Would you speak on the matter sometime?

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe it will be a pyhrric victory. As the saying goes if you make your bed, you have to lie in it.

Which groups are you talking about here? I really can't tell.

 

[sandandfoam]

I often find myself wondering how you deal with the strong idea of a religious government in Islam, Stephen. Would you speak on the matter sometime?

I think strong government is open, tolerant and secular. What I understand as Islam is open, tolerant and peaceful - I think there is no contradiction.

 

[Muffled]

Church and state should and must be seperate.
I find it hard to imagine how ones belief (or lack of) could be seperated from ones politics.

The bill of rights is all about minority rights. The problem with majority rule is that the majority can make the minority very uncomfortable. For instance a Christian majority could make laws against wearing head scarves but the constitution says it can't do that. Sometimes a law is made for secular reasons that limits religiuos practice such as drivers licenses requiring pictures of unadorned heads. The object of the law is not to prohibit the practice of religion but to provide for public safety. My question is whether it is necessary or is it likely that a person would still be recognized with a head scarf. On the other hand a full face mask or veil does make it impossible to identify the person.

 

[Revoltingest]

Politics & religion are OK.
Government & religion are awful.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think strong government is open, tolerant and secular. What I understand as Islam is open, tolerant and peaceful - I think there is no contradiction.

I'm sure there isn't. But so many people give insist so much that the ideal government such follow Islamic Law and that secularism is anathema to it, that one must wonder.

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm sure there isn't. But so many people give insist so much that the ideal government such follow Islamic Law and that secularism is anathema to it, that one must wonder.

I think that those you refer to wouldn't consider me a muslim but rather some sort of a heretic

I find it kind of funny if I'm honest.

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm sure there isn't. But so many people give insist so much that the ideal government such follow Islamic Law and that secularism is anathema to it, that one must wonder.

Luis,

I'm doing a few jobs as I'm in and out of here - as I was at them I was think ing about my previous response and it is unsatisfactory.
I hope this might be better.

I am deeply moved by the example of Badshah Khan and the Khudai Khidmatgar. They set the standard to which I aspire.

Here is a short outline if you're interested Khudai Khidmatgar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under the influence of Abdul Ghaffar Khan the movement advocated non-violent protests and justified their actions through an Islamic context. Khan did not find Islam and non-violence as incompatible. Despite that the movement was intrinsically non-sectarian. In more than one occasion when Hindus and Sikhs were attacked in Peshawar, Khidmatgar members helped protect their lives and property.
“The Holy Prophet Mohammed came into this world and taught us ‘That man is a Muslim who never hurts anyone by word or deed, but who works for the benefit and happiness of God's creatures.’ Belief in God is to love one's fellow men.” – Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan
“There is nothing surprising in a Muslim or a Pathan like me subscribing to the creed of nonviolence. It is not a new creed. It was followed fourteen hundred years ago by the Prophet all the time he was in Mecca.” – Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan

Badshah Khan represents what Islamic politics means to me.
Those of a sterner more brutal bent such as the 'fundamentalists' represent, to my mind, all that is wrong with humanity and nothing of what is beautiful in life or God.

 

[LuisDantas]

You're quite a person, Stephen.

 

[Apex]

My opinion follows very closely with a statement from the SCOTUS:

The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm,” the high court wrote. “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.”

Link

It is sad that they do not actually follow with this line of reasoning as their decisions on separation of church and state issues are all over the map with almost no consistency. And the even sadder part, they have admitted that their decisions lack any kind of logical reasoning.