your opinions on religion in politics/church and state???

Question

I'm writing a paper on the separation of church and state and I need some different views on the topic. It's a definition paper, so I need to know like what you think the boundaries are. And please be as specific as possible... THANKS SO VERY MUCH!!!!!!

Answer 1

Every time you spend money which is a government entity there is no separation. Every piece of money says IN GOD WE TRUST. It's what this country was built from. There should be no separation.

Answer 2

Both entities have different functions. However, each intersect. Government is born out the values and principles of a civilization or culture. Religion is, historically, the dominate influence on the values and principles of a country or culture. In the US, we adhere to a seperation of church and state. The Consitution and the framers lay out what they believed were universal princples which transcended religion. Each man has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Regardless, no one can truly argue that the US model for government was not founded on Christian values. Reading the writings of Hamilton and other prominent leaders at the time, the Federalist gave insight into the logic and reasoning of how and why the Constitution was framed the way it was. I think seperation of Church and State is required to a point. The State is the entitity which was created to provide that which religion could not, i.e., such as policing powers, education, and services such as water. Religion does that which the State cannot, i.e., instills values, charity, and forms the foundation of society. In the US, it becomes contentious only when one religion wishes to have more recognition by the State than another. An example of this is prayer at government run or sponsored events (school). The critic of such acts claims this is an infringement of their Constitutional rights and that is the fundamental problem in the US. The universal rights proscribed by the framers give critics the arguments to fight against such infringement of the Church/State seperation doctrine. However, it would be folly for the government to completely abandon the basis for which it was founded. There are numerous references to the Christian underpinnings of the Constitution and their faith. The day when we become completely secular is the day the US loses its cultural identity.

Answer 3

There is no interpretation of the Establishment Clause that is ever going to make a large majority of Americans happy. My own interpretation of the Clause is very narrow and it is far too narrow to many people on the left.

My interpretation is as follows. I believe that the Establishment Clause means first and foremost what it says -- no creation of an official religion for any level of government in America. Unlike many European countries and Latin American countries and unlike Israel and many middle Eastern countries, the U.S. does not have an official religion, nor does any state or local government. Second, I believe that "the separation of church and state" means that church(es) must remain an entity (entities) separate from government. No government can pass the buck of law-making/law-enforcing powers over to any church. The laws of Utah must be made entirely by the Utah legislature, not by the Mormon Church. The laws of Mississippi must be made by the Mississippi legislature, not by the Baptist Church. That is all it means. Repeat: that is ALL that it means!! It doesn't mean anything more than that!

It doesn't mean that laws are supposed to be based on something other than morality. Separation of church and state does not mean separation of law from morality.

Answer 4

The separation of church and state is not in our constitution, it is in the Russian constitution. Our constitution simply states that the government cannot establish a state religion like England has, The state religion in England is Protestant. And I think Prince Charles is the head of the church. Since the beginning of our country our forefathers have always prayed in school and in the government, and they still hold prayer in government when Congress is in session. We always had prayer in school until 1960 when an atheists Madelyn O'Hara took it to court and got prayer taken out of school, and when that happened our children of the sixties went wild, sex, drugs and rock and roll, unruly. And it has continued to this day. We had to change our system for one person O'Hara. And saying a prayer in school dose not establish a religion. Or saying a prayer at the beginning of your day dose not establish a religion, now the atheists are stepping on our toes by wanting all crosses removed from government buildings and off graves of soldiers, and at war memorials, those crosses do not establish a religion. It is their hatred for religion and the symbols we hold dear that they hate, they don't want to be reminded that their might be a G-D. Our forefathers brought forth this country under the guidance of G-D, to practice their religion the way they want, and to stop people that would not let them do that, by establishing a government that would protect peoples rights, to practice what ever religion they wanted.

Answer 5

I looked for an old answer of mine to a similar question that explains how the forefathers FULLY intended that church and state be separated... can't find it and refuse to spend an hour retyping and researching.

The catch22 that some wackos try to state is that if you look real close at the wording in the constitution, it talks more about (in layman's terms) not letting the government give more rights to ONE religion... not so much NO religion.

Yet, Jefferson for example, clarified the meaning of the terminology in some of his writings where he verbatim stated he meant to separate the two.

In some research, I have also studied the Supreme Court's examination of some of the cases, like prayer in school and the 10 commandments being posted in public buildings... they fully argue that, based on the wording, you can't allow this stuff. They go on to say that if you do, you end up with times of kneeling, chanting, etc...

Answer 6

separation of church and state ?
There in no separation of church and state in the US. Only the state separate form the church.

.


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

It does not state the church must be keep out of the state, but the state can not have a church as the states own and the Feds must not get in the way of any church rights.

It does not say if you believe in a God you can not run of office.The church can not control the Fed and the Feds can not stop the church from being.

Answer 7

As a preacher, I feel that there has to be a separation on specifics. I don't want some liberal teacher teaching my child about foundational beliefs I hold dear. At the same time the basic moral code found in most religions will always show through. Pick your battles, don't let them pick you. As we constantlly fight over the "trivial" details, all we do is divide our nation and divert attention from the real issues. I vote the issues, not denomination or party. Think for yourself. Don't buy into what someone else tells you is true. Check it out for yourself.

Answer 8

The state should be neutral in its dealings with religion - allowing for free expression but not sanctioning any specific religion. For example, letting kids have prayer groups at school is perfectly fine but having Christian (or Islamic or Buddhist or whatever) prayers read over the PA system is not OK. A moment of silence is fine (why this is opposed, I haven't a clue).
The placing of the 10 Commandments in public buildings should be prohibited. The public funding of specific religious icons (manger scenes, for example) should not be allowed. Private funding, displays on private property are 100% great.

There are lots of intertwined messages in all this and there is no way to completely separate this. The "In God We Trust" on our money is an example. Heck, leave it. "One nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, well, if you don't believe it , stay quiet during that part of the Pledge.

We are a religious people but we cannot legally say we are a Christian people. Lots of different religious in the USA and that should be remembered.

Answer 9

Religion should stay OUT of politics for starters. If we let religion start making decisions for the people(of which, not everyone is the same faith), we'll have a theocracy and it'll be straight back to the days of the Inquisition in which even believers lived in fear of being executed for being "heretics".

That said, my views are based off the First Amendment, something that I've noticed few people on here and offline have truly read into and understood. Most people unfortunately try to twist the wording around or conveniently forget parts for their own purposes.

The First Amendment states as such:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." - from World Book encyclopedia.

So, the first two parts that people often use in arguements for or against religion means that the government can NOT establish a specific religion of ANY kind as the "state" religion. Doing so gives said religion precedence and favor over all others, more or less establishing a theocracy.

To do so steps on the second part, which guarantees all citizens the right to believe whatever they choose, including the right to NOT believe in God(s) at all. While the phrase "separation of church and state" don't outright appear in the Constitution, it's clearly implied that religion and politics MUST be separate. For either politics to mess with religion or religion to mess with politics is dangerous to freedom.

The government can't mess with religion and start mandating that certain religious practices(such as taking communion or going to church) be made illegal. The only time I can think of that the government CAN step in is when a religious practice(such as marrying an underage child to an adult spouse) is harmful to a person or to the nation as a whole.

Likewise, religion can't mess with government policies and start mandating that a text like the Bible is the only law. To do so means no more voting for women or working outside the home or any rights for women at all. Women will become property of their fathers, brothers, husbands, etc. Women can be beaten for disobeying or killed for being suspected of adultery, behaviors unbefitting of a "free" nation.

Children could likewise be abused. Children could be whipped or stoned for disobedience and would also be the property of their parents. They would have to work as their parents say without question, no matter how dangerous.

Slavery would be reinstituted and therefore, any immigrants wouldn't be given status as citizens, they'd be free game for citizens to make slaves out of.

And that's just using the Bible as an example. I imagine I'd find similar things in other religious texts.

Essentially, having a theocracy means those who are of the faith of said theocracy have all the rights, while those who don't have none. To prevent that, the church is kept out of government, while, in order to protect religious beliefs of all citizens, the government stays out of the church.

I think our forefathers knew that religion and government were highly incompatible if a person wanted to be free. Theocracy was a problem in Europe and they likely saw what happened when a government told a person how to believe instead of letting religion flourish by letting a person believe as they willed. They believed that religion was personal, not mandated, and to protect that personal relationship with God, they knew that they had to protect the right to agree to disagree.

The boundaries are quite clear. Religion has no place in politics as it will lead to a theocracy which will cheapen faith by mandating it. Politics have no place in religion as, well, the one quote in the Bible says about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's(ie: give to the state what is the state's) and give to God what is God's(ie: what belongs in religion, stays in religion). Even the Bible is in favor of keeping the church and state out of each other's business.

Leave the matters of men to men, and the matters of God to God. Sort of a spiritual "Don't tell me how to do my job" sort of thing. We need men to handle men's affairs and religious faith to handle Godly affairs. So rather than banning or advocating religion, deal with keeping a free country intact and leave the church, to the church.

I'm an atheist, btw, and that's my whole view on the matter. I once thought that all religion should be banned(from government, obviously not from individuals), and I've been reading up and studying the subject for almost the last ten years, since I first went into college. I learned that, religion didn't need to be banned(nor could it be) as it was a personal thing and that since the state was public, I didn't have to worry about being forced to say I believed something when I really didn't.

Church and state can coexist, but can't meddle in each other's affairs or something will inevitably get ruined.

Answer 10

Remember the reason the framers put this freedom of religion concept into our government to start with: England had married the Church of England by making the King the head of the church.

Our nation was populated by Puritans fleeing religious persecution for fighting that adulteration in England...

Today there are some who want this nation to be 100% secularized. With the help of the ACLU and 30 or so years of godless public education, they may see that reality.

The problem with that, as I see it, is that secular humanism may be a more demanding religion than Christianity, because it denies Christians, and others, equal time.

Answer 11

Christians: Scripture teaches there is no authority that God has not established. Also, it teaches to give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's. I firmly beleive that whatever my Government establishes is what I will follow, because God allows my governement to exist. If my Goivernement says no 10 commandents, then that is fine..I teach it at home. If it says no prayer, then that is fine,,,i teach it at home. As a US citizen, i do not beleive there should be any influence from any releigion in the public civil universe. Meaning, no 10 Commandments,,,etc. There are too many releigions to use just one releigion's scripture or beleifs. As a Christian, I know these other religions are wrong in doctrine but that is not an issue for civic buildings or schools..The poeple in government (pres, judges, etc) are free to use God or prayer as means to thier decision, that is part of thier freedom of releigion.