Why is the seperation of church and state such a bad thing? Do we really want to live in a theocracy?

Question

Ever read the Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood?
Remember the Taliban ? Remeber learning about the Salem Witch Trials ? Remember learning about the Spanish Inquisition ? Just wondering.

Speakeasy: With all due respect we are going to agree to disagree. I am not buying this nation was setup as a Judeo Christian state. If anything, in reaction to the fear of a Stuart led, European style religious monarchy, there was no chance of a theocracy being established here in the US. The founding fathers had plenty of opportunity do do this in the 18th C. if they had wanted to. We have the freedom OF and FROM religion in our First Amendment.

ny_spork: Judging by the inflamatory nature of many of these responses, I have to agree with you.
Many Americans did not realize what they were surrendering to the Bush Administration. I fear we are greatly dumbed-down as a society.

Maryjuan: The Spanish Inquisition ? A 17th C English phenomonem ? The Taliban? ... I will give you the Salem Villiage witch trials and the European witch craze as well. The Handmaid's Tale is a work of 20th fiction.

Jon M, Actually ALL the events in the Handmaid's Tale all happened in America at some point in American history. As long as religion, matters of doctrine, faith, and proslytizing are kept within limits I have no problem with any practice of any religion.
That is called tolerance. As I said, we have a freedom FROM religious worship too. I fear we have given some evangelicals way too much power and authority already. They tend to become corrupt when this happens.

Firestorm: JUST because there is NO literal reference to a seperation between church and state does not mean it is NOT Constitutional. I believe this doctrine got spelled out in the late 19th C. Technically any number of Supreme Court decisions did not refer to wording written precisely stated in the Constitution - Near Vs Mn,
NYT vs. Sullivan, The Posse Comitatus, ( sp?),
Roe v Wade...Prior Restraint, Privacy, Libel, are not spelled out but they have a Constitutional basis. In turn, you may want to study Constitusional law, the court decisions, how the court made minority and majority decisions and develop some perspective. Have all the god you want. I have no issue with that. Just don't impose your favorite flavor on anyone else. As for god in public life, this is not a settled issue, but just a common sense balance should serve. I would take a close look at the president's faith based initiatives. I am thinking these are NOT Constitutional if the providers can withhold aid.

Firestorm: You have much in common with Clarence Thomas, it seems. If your belief prevailed, we would not have Maranda laws, we would not have Brown vs Topeka Board of Education or even judicial review, going back to John Marshall. Yes there IS a separation between church and state, and long may it stand.

Answer 1

AS A MATTER OF FACT, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. I THINK THAT RELIGION HAS CAUSED MORE PAIN IN THE WORLD THAN ANY OTHER INSTITUTION EVER HAS. THE (4) EXAMPLES THAT YOU GIVE ARE CHILLING REMINDERS OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE ARE NO CHECKS AND BALANCES ON RELIGION, HOW EASILY IT CAN TURN TO FANATICISM ! KARL MARX SAID THAT RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE PEOPLE. HE SAW RELIGION AS A MENTAL CRUTCH PEOPLE USE TO DEAL WITH THE EVER-FAST PACED WORLD WE LIVE IN ! WE ALL KNOW ON THE FLIP SIDE, RELIGION CAN BE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL, WONDERFUL THING IN OUR LIVES. HOWEVER, IT JUST TAKES A FEW BAD PEOPLE TO STEER THIS MOST POWERFUL, MYSTICAL FORCE TOWARD THE DARK SIDE. ............ ... SO, WONDER NO MORE. YOU CAN REST ASSURED THAT YOUR OPINIONS ARE VALID, AND COMPLETELY ON TARGET !

Answer 2

It isn't a bad thing and I think most people in this country, whatever their religion or beliefs may be agrees with that. The problem is when people either think that their beliefs should be part of the government is when it becomes a problem. Many people forget that a seperation of church and state is never said in the constitution. What it does say is that the government may make no laws for or against any religion. (That is what defines the governmnet not any quotes or other things the founding fathers wrote outside of their government duties.)

Another thing is some people think that since teachers aren't allowed to lead a prayer in school that the students can't pray, which is a common misconception. Banning even individual prayer at schools is a violation of the previously mentioned part of the constitution as well as freedom of speech. Others think that the ACLU is out after religions because of its widespread support of the seperation of church and state. The funny thing is that the ACLU actually supported a graduating High School Valevictorian who wanted to mention God in his graduation speech.

John M- The constitution does not only apply to the federal government it applies to any and all governmnet organization. A state law can't violate the constitution just as a federal law can't.

Answer 3

The Handmaid's Tale is a crock and nothing but an ill-informed prejudiced novel that has no basis in any of its premises.
The vast Majority of American Christians do NOT want a theocracy. We feel that the government in it's original state was very good.
The Seperation of Church and State is a crock to get rid of Christianity in our society. Those who support it also support the institution of Secular Humanism, which is a religion. They are trying to create a Humanist Theocracy. Oops, bet you didn't know about that huh. Read the Humanist Manifesto by Raymond B. Bragg.

America has never had, will never have a Christian Government. However, it has always been a Judeo-Christian Society.

Snippets from a paper I wrote for a Religious Studies Course and subsequently turned in for Political Science:

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 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.”

The Founding Fathers could not put their position on religious freedom in any plainer language. Congress, and therefore the Federal Government, is not permitted to establish a National Religion for the United States of America. This is in clear reference to the Anglican, or Church of England, which was established as the National Church of England by Henry VIII. Congress, and the Federal Government, also cannot make any law prohibiting the free exercise of Religion. Quite simply, the Government cannot prevent anyone from exercising their religious faith.

There is nothing in the Constitution stating anything about religious icons in the public square, prayer in schools, or anything else. The idea of “participant observation” is Constitutionally has little basis. As a School Policy that’s fine, it’s the school’s prerogative to create such a rule. If this course were a required course one could, possibly, but weakly, make the case that the school is “Establishing” Religion, however that is not Constitutionally based, because the US Constitution only places limits on the Federal Government, not schools, not the States, who are governed by their own Constitutions. The extension of the Law beyond the national Government is a break from the Federalist System upon which our Government was founded, a separation of Powers, a limited number allocated to the Federal Government, with most other powers allocated to the states.

The whole idea of Separation of Church and State is a relatively recent doctrine. Though sound in terms of the Government itself, Government should not base its laws, rulings, etc. on religion. But in terms of simply existing in the Public Square, Government not only should not, but is Constitutionally prohibited from restricting the existence of Religion in the public arena.

Answer 4

Personally, I don't think that a "separation of church and state" is "a bad thing." But the thing which is very, very bad is the extreme confidence of liberals that THEIR interpretation of that phrase is obviously the only correct one and anyone else who doesn't adhere to THEIR interpretation is a "theocrat."

When you talk about "Salem Witch Trials" and the "Spanish Inquisition," and the "Taliban," you are making yourself look like Chicken Little, and that, too, is a bad thing. It is just plain insulting and hurtful to the Christian conservatives who you obviously don't respect the slightest bit. You are driving a wedge into the heart of this society when you talk that way.

I'd like to recommend to you that you read John C. Hughes book (published 1995) entitled "The Federal Courts, Politics, and the Rule of Law." Mr. Hughes talked about the different ways that the Establishment Clause has been interpreted. And in the conclusion of his book, he said,

"In the contemporary political context, those who fear conformity have tended to describe themselves as liberal and have tended to applaud judicial 'protection' of human rights. Those who fear diversity have tended to call themselves conservatives and have been appalled by judicial 'usurpation' of the majority's discretion to form the kind of community it finds most conducive to its own happiness. The former tends to approve of the expansive theories of constitutional interpretation, while the latter tends to prefer the restrained theories of judicial review. These alignments are neither perfect nor inevitable, but the debate has surely been shrill."

Answer 5

Because this is a nation that was settled by people running from religious persecution. The separation of Church and State protects our Freedoms both ways.

Answer 6

most don't know history... so, there's that answer... they think everything from God has to be good... like nothing bad has ever been done in God's name...

a few do know history and they seem to think we can just "kind of do it"... half way... of course that's all well and good until someone says... well we have him on the money... why don't we have state led prayers... then we have state led prayers, why not a national church... then we have a national church, why not out law all churches... (and if that happens... they WILL CHOOSE ONE CHRISTIAN RELIGION... it won't be "all Chrisitans"... do you want to convert to Catholic or Baptist?)

when you "kind of do something" your assuming that those in the future will ALWAYS have the same relative ideas that you have and that future actions won't ever change the way the majority thinks... and that's a huge assumption...

I don't like assuming... and in my mind... a full separation may be a harsh, yet effective, guarantee on freedom of all religions... a very small price to pay for assured religious freedom...

Answer 7

Seperation of church and state are important. But most people think it goes only 1 way (to protect the state from the church) but Thomas Jefferson's letter states very clearly that the separation of church and state is to protect both from each other.
I look at it this way: The state is a check against the church, but the church acts as a voice against abuses commited by the state.

Answer 8

I have to totally agree with the way this current administration is going and the so called christian right. The fore fathers that founded this country would be appalled. They wanted freedom to worship in a way that they chose and the freedom from forced worship. Having your government telling you how and when to worship and what is and isn't acceptable or normal just isn't right. Neither is being told how to vote from the pulpit. The minister or clergy have no right to tell their flock who is right and wrong when it comes to local, state and federal governing. They are to be our spiritual guides.

Answer 9

This is a very complex issue and I am sure proper justic can not be done to it on a yahoo post. Separation of Church and State, what does that mean? Nothing wrong with our leader praying to God. Nothing wrong with acknowledging God on our Money. The State does not say you have to go to church or even believe in God. We dont want a "church" runned country. But I dotn want a bunch of non believers telling me that I can not pray or give respect to God.

Answer 10

Who said it was a bad thing. As long as we have the right to worship which ever religion we want. Keeping it separate protects those who may worship differently and not force any to worship if they choose not to. I believe the fall of morals, in our country, is probably due to the lack of religion.