Is seperation of church and state confirmation that religion is inherently flawed?

Question

I've been thinking about this a lot. I personally am against all organized religion, but am for the right for anyone to practice what they want. Now, what is the motivation of seperating church and state if you believe the fundamental principles in life lie in your religion? Would not the religious person be inclined to incorperate their religion into government if they believe so strongly in it? I'm looking for an insightful answer.

OPEN-MINDED RESPONSES, PLEASE.

Answer 1

Honestly... no. It's confirmation that religious doctrine makes for poor lawmaking. The motivation for separating them is so that religion doesn't get to act as the ultimate special interest group. Imagine everyone legislating the morality and the behavioral standards of their own particular faith. If would infringe upon everyone's ability to practice their OWN faith.

Answer 2

You have several questions so let's list:
a) Title - church is not an equivalency to religion. The constitution was written more or less directly against Anglicism.
b) Somewhere there is a missing assumption in the title i.e. separation therefore means flawed? Hard to see w/ 3 part gov.
c) Allowing people to practise what they want is difficult unless they are under some form of accountible religion cf. polygamy etc.
d) Pres. Ford just died. I think he is an example of one who incorporated his religion into his political career for example the pardoning of Nixon. I think many religious people have strong principles including the concept of justice etc. which lead them to a sensitivity to others who may not share their belief.
e) You ask important questions. One of the important aspects which always needs to be remembered is that we are flawed people. Religious or non-religious will make errors. How we deal with the errors may say more about our religion than anything else.

Answer 3

The intent of the separation of church and state is ensure that no government elected by the people has the ability to restrict thought or belief.

It can certainly be asserted that it was built into the frame work of our country because it was believed that religion is flawed, but that would be foolish to believe because all of the framers believed in God in one way or another. The article exists as a way to absolve people for their personal beliefs and hold no punishment for those that hold beliefs counter to the majority.

In the end, the separation of church and state exists to protect the believer from persecution, not the governing body from religion.

This also admits that human interpretation is flawed and as long as that is true there can be no combination of church and state because beliefs change, but the needs of a society do not.

Answer 4

The phrase "seperation of church and state" is inherently flawed.. it gives one the wrong perception of the 1st ammendment, which states that the State shall make NO LAWS infringing on the "free expression" of one's religion... don't believe me? go read it!

We would be a lot better off if people could ever get Christianity right and let Jesus be the motivation for all laws. The problem is that people are still in argument about some of the basic premises, methinks.

Answer 5

All you have to do is look as past Presidents to know that statement is flawed.

Washington
Jefferson
Madison
Lincoln
Roosevelt
Kennedy
Wilson
and many many more

Lincoln said that "he would be the greatest fool on this footstool called Earth if he ever thought that for one moment he could perform the duties of that office without help from One who is stronger than all."

He also stated "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

George Washington said "Do not let any one claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics."

John Adams stated "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."

He also stated "The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity."

There are numerous quotes

What have we done since then? And where is our country now compared to years ago? I think the answer is obvious here. Without our previous Presidents having the beliefs and ideas they did about religion and our country we would not have even gotten this far. Look at us now. We are trying to remove their beliefs about keeping God apart of our country and we are falling apart. No one can look at history and deny this.

I especially like this quote

Andrew Johnson (Abraham Lincoln's choice for Vice-President) said "I do believe in Almighty God! And I believe also in the Bible...Let us look forward to the time when we can take the flag of our country and nail it below the Cross, and there let it wave as it waved in the olden times, and let us gather around it and inscribed for our motto: "Liberty and Union, one and inseparable, now and forever," and exclaim, Christ first, our country next

Answer 6

I think because every human being is flawed, our government is also flawed. There are no, in the practical application of it....no perfect forms of government because there will always be imperfect people out there that come into positions of authority with a will to exploit it for selfish purposes. So having an expectation that if we just put "this person" into power our problems would be solved. Or if we just pass "this law" there will be no problems. It will never be perfect because it flows through imperfect people.
Compounded by the fact that there are so many world views...pluralism is never healthy for a society in practical application. IF there is a "right" way...then it is mixed in with all the other points of view. Since all views have equal rights, all are viewed with the same importance, therefore none is valuable. Then it comes down to the will of the people, which is imperfect and can be destructive as we have seen down though history...slavery for example.

As a christian I believe eventually there will be a perfect government. It will be a theocracy set up by Jesus Christ and everyone will submit to Him. He will rule with a rod of iron. Strong and true. This is great comfort to me and eases my worries about where this world is going. Truth is not relative. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but it is a comfort for me to understand that there is a, down to brass tack, truth in the universe and justice will someday be perfect.

Answer 7

There's the rub. We are experiencing at this moment a battle for the heart and soul of the United States. It appears that we have become almost equally divided between those who make their life decisions from a religious standpoint and those who make their life decisions from a humanistic standpoint. It is only normal for a political group who thinks from a religious viewpoint to instill religious ideas and decision making into government. Likewise, it is only normal for a politcal group that thinks from a humanistic viewpoint to shun religion in government.

I don't know which way we are about to go. I do believe, though, that history shows most things like this move like a pendulum. Movement from right to left or visa versa tends to occur after a period of pause at one extreme. But when the pendulum begins to move, it moves rapidly spending very little time in the middle. It then slows, staying for a period of time in the other direction before something causes a return swing in the other direction.

I think we have witnessed the beginning of a rapid swing to the far non religiously based left brought on by our country's inability to accept the sacrifice of our military men in a place like Iraq. This is much like Vietnam where a rapid swing to the left occurred staying there for quite some time until the Reagan conservative revolution triggered a rapid swing to the religious right. It has stayed pretty much to the right with some small wavers since then.

I believe we are now seeing a rapid movement to the left until (and I unfortunately believe this will occur) we begin to see radical islam carrying out terrorist activities right here on US soil. When US citizens begin to again feel fearful and vulnerable we will see a rapid swing back to the right again as the public looks to the Republicans to save us from the terrorists. Right now I think most citizens have lost the initial shock and fear felt from 9-11. Once this complacency wears off by another shock, we will see another shift to the religious right.

Answer 8

Seperation of church and state is the realization of how powerful religion is. If goverment and religion were intermixed, the country would be broken up into smaller borders that not only defined land area but defined a religions territory. Basically what seperation of church and state means is "We know we'll never agree on this issue, so let's put it aside in favor of a strong union."

Answer 9

For United States, no, because both church and "state" are flawed. Government and law are not flawed because of the influence of a predominantly christian population, religious influence does exist. It is the flaw of humanity; we lie, we cheat, we steal, that makes governing the way it is.

The faith of the majority does undermine government and law, but I stress majority. Something that is not accepted by the majority will not make it as an idea in politics unless the flaw of humanity kicks in. That is when politicians bribe and cheat to get their way; which, of course, is not religious.

Answer 10

It has nothing to do with religion being flawed or not, it has to do with avoiding the tyranny of the majority wich is a threat in any democracy. The bill of rights act as a check on the majority.
The inherent problem with true democracy is that 50 percet plus one, can dictate the law. In a winner take all system, that means it is possible for 50 percent minus one, people to have absolutly no say in their government.
By establishing the seperation of church and state, the marjority is stopped from using the resourses of the state to forward their religios views ( no establishment) and stopped from penalizing others from having different views ( free exercise).
Orinally the bill of rights was only intended to be binding on the federal government leaving the states free to do as they wished. Thus states could have their own religions if they wished, but would not be able to force the federal goverenment to endorse their religion. Many of the origanal colonies had large proportions of specific religions ( puritans in the north, quakers in and luthresn in Pa, Jews and catholics in the middle states, baptists and anglecans in the south.) Each could do what they wanted at home, but could not use the federal government to push their religion on other states. Without this assurance the states never would have agreed to join together ( though the method they used to avoid such things was a bi-cameral legislature, not the bill of rights, that came later to clarity things).
Now that the bill of rights applies to the states as well as to the federal government, the first amendment means ( among other things) that the government at all levels may not use its power to forward one religion over another or over non-religion, but also that it can not stop individuals working in their private capacity from engaging in religion as they see fit. Orignally, it kept each state from using the federal government to impose their views of religion on the other states. In both cases, it had nothing to do with religion being flawed, it had to do with freeing people from religious coersion and guaranteeing them the right to freedom of belief.

Answer 11

If anything, it doesn't mean that the religion is flawed, it means that human opinions are not alike. Thus this big deal about fredom of religion forms, and religion is excluded from state. Think about it, if the church and state where together, wouldn't that go against freedom of religion? (You would have to live in a country with such a right to fully understand this I suppose. I presume you are)