What exactly is wrong with a mild relationship between government and religion?

Question

This thread regards religious politics in general, but is more specifically focused on the increasingly evident "anti-religious" behaviours associated with left-wing politics.

I suppose the main question of this thread is, 'Why is a complete seperation of church and state necessary?' Or perhaps 'Why should the religious beliefs of the majority be ignored in a democratic society?'

Obviously, a pure theocracy is not practical for this modern age due to a globally considerable (though minor) number of people not affiliated with a recongnized religion.

But, would this not mean that the exact opposite of a theocracy ("complete" seperation of church and state) would also not be practical, considering that the (nearly) 'vast' majority of people 'do' consider themselves to be affiliated with a religion?

If you consider the fact that roughly three quarters of the people of modern developed western nations are, in fact, religious, would it not be healthy and a positive idea to create a more structural relationship between religion and government?

What I tend to observe from people who happen to be non-religious, is that they support (almost aggressively) this concept of a complete seperation of church and state, simply because not all people share the same beliefs -- but in a democratic society, would it not be considered innapproapriate to ignore the theological beliefs and identities of the majority?

Even something as simple and basic and government funding to religious institutions and faith-based organtizations / charities with would improve the a very important life aspect to "the people". Not even something like this can be accepted by those collectively associated with left-wing politics. Or what about posting religious documents (such as the 10 commandments -- which are pretty basic and geniune morals that I'm sure everyone (regardless of religion, or lack their of) can easily go by) in public areas/schools? How can seeing a religious symbol or text of a religion that an individual may not follow be offensive?

It seems like society is becoming an atheistic one -- even though the majority of the people within any given nation (as well of the entire planet collectively) have contrary views.

Don't get me wrong -- I think that an overly-religious government would be very negative. But I don't see why society and politics should exclusively please the minority, rather than the majority, in terms of use of religion.

How would a government with minor religious influence be harmful?

Answer 1

'Why is a complete seperation of church and state necessary?'

It's not necessary. Organizations like the ACLU, which often seem to be anti-Christian, would have you believe that there must be a total separation, but this is absurd and an intentional misreading of the First Amendment. The Founders never intended the banning of nativity scenes, for example, or a simple prayer before a football game.

Answer 2

Here's why I'd be against taking such a measure. The separation of church and state protects both entities. Power has a corrupting influence that the church simply doesn't need.

Conversely, the government wields religion as a tool to sway the masses innapropriately. George W. Bush could not have gotten elected to a second term if he had not convinced the Christian Right that refusing to give marriage tax breaks to gays would defend the institution of marriage from our current 50% divorce rate. That doesn't even make sense when you think about it, but he put a religious slant on the issue and preachers all over the nation picked up the cause. He used our own homophobia against us, and it worked.

I somewhat agree with you that the vehemence of the ACLU in removing things like the 10 commandments from courthouses can get a little nonsensical. On the other hand, the 10 commandments are not the ruling law of our land. I'd much prefer that a copy of the constitution be posted outside every courthouse. I don't personally believe that "Freedom of Religion" should be construed as "Freedom from religion", but it also does no harm for children to pray on their own as they see fit, rather than having their teacher lead everyone in a group prayer.

The main reason that I believe it would be a bad idea for our government to begin delving into relious pandering, is whose religion should they pander too? Should they follow the teachings of the 700 club, and assassinate whichever South American leader Jerry Falwell has a problem with this week? Perhaps they should follow the orders of the Pope? It's true that Christians, as a lumped together entity, are in the majority. However, when has every denomination of christianity ever agreed on anything? The Baptists like to boycott disney movies. Anglicans don't mind gay or lesbian priests. The Assemblies of God churches don't allow dancing. The Catholics believe that forgiveness comes from confession to a priest, and don't eat meat on Fridays from February until Easter.

There's also the major issue of precedence. Our legal system currently relies on precedents for nearly everything, so once we begin to move that direction, it's extremely difficult to reign back in once we've reached the line. Where exactly would you draw that line, by the way?

Answer 3

While it might seem that a "minor" connection between church and state would seem like a good idea, the reality is that it is a dangerous idea. Once a religion (any religion) gets its foot in the door of government, it is only a matter of small steps until there is an "offical" government religion. And since this government sponsored religion would be run by humans, the potential for abuse of power is rife!

You mention the 10 Commenadments as being "pretty basic and genuine morals." Ok, let's suppose for a moment that we make the 10 commandments a legal document. There goes advertising! "Thou shalt not covet" pretty much ruins THAT business. "Remember the Sabbath Day and keep it wholly." This usually means you can't work on Sunday. What are we going to do with all the folks that are in car accidents, on life support, etc on a Sunday if the nurses and doctors can't work?

And of course, there's the really big one: "Thou shalt have no gods before Me." Ok, which God? The God of the Jews, the Muslims? The Seventh Day Adventists? The Baptists? The Catholics? By allowing THAT commandment to become law, we would have to jail most of the world's population.

It may seem pretty far fetched, but I must ask you: Isn't this the very thing that was predicted in Revelations? "They could neither buy nor sell unless they had the mark of the Beast." (Rev. 13:17)

The unfortunate thing is that there are only SMALL steps between allowing government to display religious icons to having an official state religion to being an outlaw because you have violated a religious edict.

Answer 4

You would quickly find the line blurred. If you chose only Christian churches, you immediately create a climate in which laws favorable to that group will be created. Maybe they'll introduce a law requiring everyone to work on a Saturday. Does that mean Jews are no longer welcome in your country?

What about if the chosen religion is Islam? Would you be willing to follow the tennats of that relgion, including denying Jesus as the Son of God?

What happens when the religious mix in a country changes? Doe s the special relationship change to the majority religion?

No, the framers wisely avoided these issues by keeping the two separate. If you want to know what a western country looks like when a religion has some control over law making, look no further than Britain, where clerics are still appointed to the House of Lords.

As to your use of the world 'mild' in reference to a relationship involving religion and government - this has the same problem as asking "what is the harm in mild institutionalized torture" or "mild sexual abuse". These are issues where 'mild' cannot be used as a qualifier.

Answer 5

A pastor once explained this to me this way,
Our country is based on freedom - including the right to freedom of religion. If we have religion in the government - everyone assumes it is only Christianity we are talking about. If Christians have freedom to be Christians and use the government as their platform - what is to stop other religions that are different to do the same thing? Because we have this freedom that so many died for concerning religious rights - well, what would stop nonmainstream religions from speaking up and demanding their EQUAL rights? Religions come in many forms besides Christianity. Many people are Buddist. Wouldn't our equal religious rights allow a Buddah standing next to Jesus?
Why not? And there are self proclaimed witches who believe that their coven is a religious church. What would stop them from recruiting witches at the elementary school - if Christian's can hand out Bibles why couldn't the witches hand out witch manuels or whatever they use? It opens a whole can of worms and a whole lot of people having different opinons. Even within Christianity there are dozens of sects. There is infighting just for their differences!
THAT is what the results would be if we push the freedom of religion and try to vote it to be pushed onto the government front. Extremists believe that it is all Christian or no religion at all.
And each group will fight for their end to prove a downfall for all.
I believe we have the minor religious influence now compared to what it could become. Can we get away with what we have without it being a strong issue for many? I don't know. I do believe the majority of U.S. Americans are Christian. But it seems like whomever has the platform and fights the hardest and loudest and has money in Washington is typically the power who rules.
I am hoping that extremists leave well enough alone and realize what they are asking for and what could come from their positions being realized. It may not end up to be at all what it looked like when they first asked for it.
I am interested in other's views and try to listen carefully to what people claim and the future of the decisions made.
Thanks for letting me say what has been on my mind. I can't say I'm 100% right - I am a learning and growing person who finds that the older I am and the more "educated" I become, the more I have to learn. I hope I kept to the topic you suggested. Thanks for your views!

Answer 6

Religious convictions will always motivate government employees - that much is unavoidable. And moral norms will always reflect the dominant religious sentiment of the general population. That is unavoidable. So the relationship between church and state is not as simple as "never the twain shall meet" - the twain have already met, and are already deeply intertwined. The best situation is something like this: 1) The government cannot mandate religious observance. 2) The government cannot forbid religious observance, unless that religious observance robs adult citizens of their liberties in some way. Human sacrifice, for example, is out of the question. 3) Laws should be structured to preserve the liberty of the citizens. Liberty is defined as the freedom to do as you please, so long as you don't prevent others from doing as they please. So, while religion will always influence legislation and politics, it cannot marginalize any group. (In the modern USA, our laws are no longer structured around liberty - so it is possible for government to legislate religious observation.) 4) The government should be a Republic - rule by law, with the powers of government explicitly delineated in an inviolable constitution, and guaranteeing equality before the law. Now, the problem with modern America is that we are no longer a Republic, and we practice preemptive law. Given those conditions, people are certainly concerned about the separation of church and state, because it is now possible for religious sentiment (pro or con) to directly influence the government.

Answer 7

Wow...You have actually asked quite a few questions here. I think I'll answer this one, most specifically:

"but in a democratic society, would it not be considered innapproapriate to ignore the theological beliefs and identities of the majority?"

No, on the contrary, in a democratic society, it would be entirely inappropriate to recognize ANY theological beliefs! Here in the U.S. we ALL have the right to believe in whatever religion (or lack thereof) we choose. Incorporating the beliefs of the majority into our government would hinder the ability of the minority to maintain their Constitutional right to freedom of religion.

For example, if a citizen chooses to be Jewish, and our government defaults to Christianity, because the majority believe in Christ, then the Constitutional rights of those who follow the Jewish faith will have been restricted.

The majority may be faithful, but not necessarily with the same faith.

FYI, one of the Ten Commandments is, "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any other Gods above me"...Don't you think it would be problematic for Hindu's? I don't think that's something that everyone can go by...I agree with you on some of the more basic stuff: Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill. But, we already have laws against those things.

Every American deserves to have all of the rights that the rest of Americans have. This is not an effort to please the minority - but to ensure that everyone has the same level of entitlements. EVERYONE.

Answer 8

Well, the original reason for a separation of church and state was to protect the church, which I think is still a completely valid reason for it.

While, yes, there are many in the U.S. who consider themselves Christian, for the government to finance or provide assistance to Christian organizations would be the same as establishing a state religion, unless they did the same for ALL religions. True, the church wouldn't "run" the government per se, but monetary favoritism seems to be to be advocating a particular religion over another--hence a "state-approved" religion. We can all see that this is unconstitutional.

It is simply breaking the rules of the Constitution to have a government with "minor religious influence." The need for a secular government was one of the most important catalysts for the founding of the U.S.

The government has no place controlling the activities of churches, either. Allowing them to provide funding implies that they have a say in how that funding is spent, just like it is for all other government-funded institutions. I know of no church who would be willing to accept that.

Answer 9

The problem is that religions are themselves run by a religious institution. If a government is to be religious at all, it would need to have one religion, thereby affiliating itself with this institution. The institution would then have some power over the government (see religious right in the states). Any government, of course, should practise good morals, but an idea like posting the ten commandments everywhere would be seen as indoctrinating, and discriminating against the people who are not of that religion.
Religion gives politicians an easy excuse to do things ("God told me to attack Iraq"), and divides society. People should support a party because of its policy, not because it is of their religion.

Answer 10

The Constitution is set up to protect people from the tyranny of the majority. Remember, the pilgrims fled the state religon of the time in England to seek religious freedom here. The Founding Fathers recognized that the only way to make sure that everyone could worship in the way that he or she pleased was to keep government & worship separate.

Answer 11

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Which essentially means the government cannot force religion onto the people, nor can they prohibit the practice of any religion.

I'm sure most non-christian people wouldn't have a problem with the 10 Commandments being posted outside of a courthouse except for that pesky 1st one... "Thou shall have no other gods before me." That sounds like an endorsment of religion if I ever heard one! ^_^

However, people getting offended over "One nation, under God" in the Pledge of Alleigance are a little too sensitive.
Don't believe in God? Just say "One nation, indivisible". Its a personal choice, no one's holding a gun to your head and making you say it.