Just curious as to some peoples opinions of this.
2006-12-29 12:59:55 · 17 answers · asked by deftonehead778 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. Freedom of religious expression is and so is a prohibition against Congress making any laws regarding an establishment of religion.
Separation of Church and State is actually a Socialist dogma designed to make the Fuhrer or Mao or Kim Jong or Stalin (or other Socialist leader) the absolute moral authority. It is an effort to make the State the supreme master.
In our nation, God is the source of our Rights, putting them out of the reach of would-be Socialist dictators. Defend that concept or lose your Rights.
2006-12-29 13:03:09 · answer #1 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 1⤊ 6⤋
There is no interpretation of the Establishment Clause that is ever going to make everybody happy. Consider, for example, the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance and the words "under God" as they appear in the Pledge as of 1954. Once the words "under God" were put in, it made some people very unhappy and those people hate the ones who put the words into the Pledge. But if you take the words out of the Pledge, some other people are going to be equally unhappy and are going to equally hate the ones who took them out. Same thing goes in terms of Christmas Nativity scenes of government property. Obviously some people are unhappy when they see that (I cannot for the life of me understand why), but if those unhappy people sue and successfully force the government to take down those displays, then the rest of the people are unhappy about that.
There is no agreement about what the expression "separation of church and state" means. There is no agreement even as to whether or not those words are even relevent. Myself, I lean toward the "conservative" side of this debate, although not to such an extent that I agree with those who say that the "separation" phrasology is irrelevent to the First Amendment. I just can't understand what that expression means and I don't see our society being logically consistant about this supposed "rule of law" that government must not endorse any religion.
2006-12-29 13:37:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We Have functional separation of church and state here in America, and it is one of very few countries in the world that tries it.
In many countries, you either MUST worship at the state-approved church or are prohibited from any open worship at all.
Would you like to be prohibited from practicing your beliefs, or punished for having beliefs at all? Would you like to be told that one kind of faith is mandatory and all others are illegal?
While we fuss with each other over whether a nativity scene, menorah or other holiday displays are appropriate on public property, in other countries people are routinely murdered over their choice of worship.
I'll take the American church/state debate any day.
2006-12-29 13:13:22 · answer #3 · answered by chocolahoma 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
A seperation of church and state (which the US does not really do) would improve the quality of life in the US. Decisions would be made with logic and reason rather than blind faith.
2006-12-29 13:40:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If every one thinks their own religion is the best, how can it work out? Everyone wants something based on their beliefs. Isn't that why there is so much problems now? There are people out there killing for their beliefs. I don't know, but I believe church and state should be separate. I personally don't want someone else shoving their beliefs down my throat, I have my own beliefs and don't believe I should infringe on someone else's beliefs.
2006-12-29 13:12:14 · answer #5 · answered by Virginia C 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it would ensure that everyone has the right to practice their own religion of choice...
the more church gets involved with state... the closer a state religion is... and when there is a state religion... other religions get pushed to the side or outlawed...
and it's hard to say "it's ok here, but not there"... you have to have an even application of the law... so it's either everywhere or nowhere...
and, of course, no one wants to sit through 50 prayers for every religion before a council meeting (for example)... it's just not efficient...
2006-12-29 13:04:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just look at the number of Countries run by their Religious beliefs and how many of them are either at war or are destitute nations. The separation is what has kept our nation the longest free government to rule a nation.
2006-12-29 13:12:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You do know that it IS currently separated, right?
It makes it better because you don't have one religion being pushed down your throat. You'll notice people that are for church and state, and especially prayer in schools, are all for it as long as it's THEIR religion.
Dealing with the government is painful enough without throwing in Medieval religious dogma
2006-12-29 13:03:16 · answer #8 · answered by Kiss My Shaz 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it would help create Peace honestly, we are supposed to all be free, all be equal, but we are not. We should have the right to be with who we want despite what some religions may say. If we are free then why is one persons religion going to dictate what someone can and cannot do if they don't believe the same thing?
2006-12-29 13:04:04 · answer #9 · answered by Toxic Lette 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no such thing as separation of church and state, it's just a term that has gained favor over the years. It's not in the Constitution.
2006-12-29 13:03:08 · answer #10 · answered by The Scorpion 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋