Church and State should ALWAYS be separate ?

Question

As a British person I greatly admire the Constitution of the USA which says that the state and the church should always be separate. But what happens if, in a state of emergency, when normal government is suspended, the judges happen to believe in a marriage of church and state ? Should they be exposed ?

I believe this issue is a real danger to democracy. What do you think ?

p.s. The UK doesn't even have a real constitution so the USA can really teach us on this one.

The basic problem is that the Vatican is a foreign power. That is why allegiance to the state and to the democratic constitution can be marginalised if a person's true allegiance is to a foreign power - as in the case of Roman Catholicism.

Answer 1

Church and state is becoming an issue in the US in order to keep the elections going, watch the ballots, abortion, gay marriages, ect. The issue is a big danger, see when we stop seeing God as the Creator, and the controller, we get hurricaines, tsunamis, wildfires, tornados, droughts, and the Big Guy says, hey,*look what I can do* the decline in morality, the rise in divorces, the wars, the microchip, will all fall under church and state eventually, the worst part, the US in a state of emergency can declare martial law, all Constitutional rights can be suspended, and in the event of signing over to New World Order which is in the making, will produce chaos and the need for it all. The Patriot Act, also has a claus that states in the event of this type of disaster, civilians can be arrested, detained without charges or a lawyer indefinately. Sweet, huh? The patriot act isn't there to protect us in the long run, it's just getting harder to tell who the terrorists are. For those who say separation of church and state is a myth, when it comes time to get microchipped or be tagged a rebel and a patriot, I'd like to know how real it is when we're told to take this chip or starve to death?

Answer 2

Separation of Church and State came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. He did believe there should be a wall between the two but then again while he was president the Bible was a standard textbook in schools. So I believe his version of separation is not the same as what we have today. It is the Supreme Court that "interprets" the law and they linked the First Amendment to Thomas Jefferson's letter.

No one would ever want a religious group to run our nation. That wouldn't be tolerated by anyone no matter what belief they have. Religious prosecution would inevitably happen. I mean, which group would be picked? Yes, our nation professes to be primarily Christian but that doesn't mean much. There are too many denominations that can't get along. There would never be a marriage of church and state. Americans would revolt.

Personally, I do think our nation has gone too far trying to erase our Christian heritage. Our laws were based on religious principals. Our founding fathers just did not want one religion like England had. They wanted everyone to have the right to worship as they saw fit.

Answer 3

I fought for many years for strict separation of church and state. Then 3 years ago, after hurricane Isabelle, my family was taken in by a local Baptist church when our home was destroyed. Imagine this, a Jewish family from New York, only in the community for five months, being taken in by a rural North Carolina Baptist church when FEMA says that it will take ten days just to get us hotel vouchers!

After two days in the church rec-center a church family took us into their tiny home, all 6 of us! The family and other church members cooked for us, fed us, they drove my kids to school (our cars were both underwater) they lent us money interest free to pay our bills until the insurance and the government came through. That was nearly three weeks!

So I still believe in church and state being seperate, but I also see that often the church can react faster than the state. And through the co-ordinated efforts of the church, the state of NC, FEMA andthe Red Cross my family was better served than if the state tried to do it alone.

Nothing is black and white; approach everything with an open mind and hope those around you can be educated enough to join you.

Answer 4

If you're going to charge taxes from everyone of any or no religious belief, you have to respect and accommodate all of those positions in government policy.

There's nothing wrong with an individual politician's policies being influenced by a religious faith (so long as that's declared), but the state and the church fulfil separate functions and should be separate.

Answer 5

Seperation of Church and State is a carry over from Europe. What it meant to our forefathers was that a church could not run the Govt. That's it. Now, it has been abused so much that not even lawyers have a clue as to what it means. The examples are enormous and overwhelming. It's just part of the ignorance of man. Remember the world is run by money and emotions. Logic and brains be dammed.

Answer 6

Absolutely. People don't get that "separate" has multiple meanings. Yes, the "wall" analogy is one of them.

But the most important, and the one most obvious in the Constitution (both 1st Amend, and Article VI) is that "separate" means "different", "distinct", "not the same". That the govt and the church should not be the same. That the church should not be using the govt to impose religious views as a matter of secular law.

The whole point is to prevent the govt from punishing people for doing things solely because the church says not to do them.

Religion and politics are both very passionate subjects, and people have very strong views, often bordering on fanaticism. By allowing those passions to be combined, anyone in the minority gets shut out. It already happens in this country on a daily basis.

People of minority religions are told they cannot lead supposedly "non-denominational" prayer services for public groups, because "non-denominational" really means Christian. Parents are forbidden by courts to raise their children in "non-mainstream" religions (like Wicca or Buddhism, both of which have roots older that Christianity). Laws are passed that protect Christian religious practices, and prohibit any other religion from having equal protection.

For someone who respects all religions equally, it's obvious that the US is already far past the point where there is any concept of being neutral to religions. That's why the battle has become so intense the past decade or so. Christian values are being enacted as secular law every day, for no valid secular reason.

Separation of Church and State has been recognized by the US Supreme Court for almost 130 years, since 1878. It's been considered a fundamental belief of our legal system for over 60 years (since 1943). Yet, it's still discarded on a daily basis.

Because of how passionate people get about their religion, and their politics, you really only have two choices. Keep them separate, or watch them merge.

Answer 7

Hehehe, that's why we declared independence from you oppressive limeys! (Kidding, kidding, just kidding!!!) The thing is, the Constitution also has very specific rules about how the government runs in states of emergency. For example, if the president and vice president die at the same time, the Constitution says that the Speaker of the House shall be President for the remainder of the term, and if he/she died too, then the Constitution names someone else. I'm not sure what "states of emergency" you're referring to, which would cause our country to be run solely by judges. I don't think that could ever happen. And I don't think our government would ever get away with using "emergencies" as an excuse to control religion in this country.

Answer 8

the separation of church and state does not mean politicians cannot fight for their views based on religion. it simply means that there cannot be a state run church, like the anglican church use to be, or still is, i'm not sure. sadly, many religious politicians forget that their views are not shared by everyone and try to use government to restrict peoples rights. it is deffinately not good for freedom in a country that was founded by those trying to escape religous persecution.

Answer 9

First of all you should read the constitution. It says nothing about the separation of church and state as most people see it today. The constitution only says that the government can't tell us what to worship. Or what religion we have to acknowledge.

Answer 10

Uh, the constitution doesnt actually say to seperate church and state but that is how is has been interpreted. The thing is, you cannot take the Jesus out of someone who is in politics. So no matter what the "constitution" says or rather does not say, you will still have people in office who are religious and of course want to have policies that support their beliefs. By this I do not mean making laws that people must be religious and such, but things like marraige and abortion and such.