Seperation of church and state question.????

Question

Muslims believe that church and state are the same that if you are a muslim you must eat like a muslim dress as a muslim and act as a muslim. Christian churches say the same thing. Muslims believe that their head of state must also be a religious leader and educated in the religions. Therefore how can the sunday christians say thing one against muslims when it is in our bible that we must act as christians, believe as christians and pray as christians, no just on sunday but every day the same is said of orthodox jews, they do not only abstain from pork on sabbath they abstain daily. Should not the leader of the country be of religious background an knowledgeable about the various religions in his/her own country?

Answer 1

He's not knowledgable about many things. You expect him to learn all the different religions too?

lol

Answer 2

Hi Natashya.

Firstly - you are bringing in 2 elements. The first is the historical - if my history is correct, the Separation of powers came about in England a few centuries ago, when the ruling factions weren't happy with the amount of power that the clergy had over the people, and also the influence that the church could hold over the Parliament - hence the doctrine of Separation was enacted (but there's a lot more to it than that!) (go wikipedia??)

Secondly - 'Should' - always a good question. In my opinion - I would say NO - the various leaders of the countries should NOT be of a particular religious background. It makes them too predisposed towards a specific mindset and attitude. It might be all well and good in an idealistic society - but we are talking humans here. Personally, I think I'd prefer leaders to be agnostic - it at least means they might treat all religions fairly and unbiasedly. ('Religions', as opposed to 'religious acts')

Oh - yeah - and had to add - yes, the leaders should be knowledgeable about all religions! So they don't go ignorantly offending ppl on the other side of the planet (or closer to home). After all, their decisions affect everyone.

Answer 3

Not really. Religion is a personal choice, and exists whether one person or 1 billion people believe in it. Government is most widely understoood as a contract between society and those who govern. Since many societies are made up of different religions and points of views, thier leaders are chosen by thier political ideas. Obviously, where one religion has a 90% majority, the leaders of that country will most likely be of that religion. But religious belief in no way qualifies one for political office. For that, one needs leadership qualities and the ability to compromise (a major reason Bush is currently having difficulties). Also, by adhering to strict religious beliefs, a leader's positions on issues will become predictable, and this can be a major problem, especially when dealing with opposition parties or countries. Also, almost all religions have hierachies, and therefore, states that are ruled by religous leaders create elite classes, not that unlike the communist elites creating during communism. Not only does this then garuntee that important positions are distributed by belief as opposed to ability, but also then that what is best for society is not necessarily done by the government. The only reason why countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia are global players is due to oil revenue. Absent that, and you would find that if these countries were still ruled by thier respective religious elites, they would be quite backward, as technological progress comes most rapidly and successfully to those countries that allow freedom of thought. It is no suprize that some of the leading Soviet dissidents were scientists, as they were allowed greater freedom than normal citizens.

Also, in England the separation of Church and State is not actually official since thier is an Anglican Church.

Answer 4

I disagree. I think the countries leader...the president should respect the fact that his/her country is diverse. There are people who are not religious, and 100's of different religions are practiced world wide. So...he will never know or understand all the different religions that are represented in his country nor should it be a priority.

Feeding the children and the homeless...things like that are important.

Seeing the President praying, attending church, or citing the Bible upsets me. Especially when so many people do not believe in the same things as he. Church and State are to be separated for a reason. If you want an religious experience go to church, or to whatever religious home you decide is for you.

My question is why are there so many religions, so many different "god's", and so much war going on regarding who is right or wrong. If religion was so beautiful why does it cause such chaos among many nations?

Answer 5

No. I do not believe the leader of America should be religious. Knowledgeable in other religions, yes. Actually, to state one must be religious or of a certain religion in America in order to be in a Gov't office is against the Constitution. We are not in a theocracy... this is a Secular Gov't, not recognizing one Religion over another.

Now, I would have to ask.... do you need a Religious Gov't in order to make you follow your religion correctly? Do you truly feel that a Religious Gov't/Theocracy is the only way Christians will act like True Christians? (as you have insinuated here). What would you do, if this were to actually happen, that the Gov't enforced a Doctrine on you that you did not agree with?

Answer 6

Separation of church and state is correct.
Laws of the civilized countries are now legislated by members of parliaments who are elected by the people, that is correct. Religious leaders, religious presidents and judges must obey the national laws like all other citizens.
The UN and other international agencies may assist various countries to enhance education and to apply advanced principles for a new age of world peace under the world legislative, executive and judiciary institutions independent from themselves, from religions and from all kinds of pressure groups in the future.

Answer 7

No, I disagree completely with this idea. It is the job of the religious leaders to tend to the spiritual life of it's followers. It is the job of the government to tend to the physical laws for the community. When you mix the two you do not get an ideal situation for everyone. No one should be forced to follow a religion because it is the law of the land. Everyone should have the right to choose the faith that they want regardless of their countrymen. The last time we let the Church run the laws of the land innocent people were burned at the stake.

Answer 8

Do you really want some religious crazy running the country? Our country has had so many people use religion to gain power over people. Just look at Jim Jones. Some of the people that followed him thought he was God. Do you really want to live like that. I personally don't. I would rather have the right to choose what is going to happen in my country and government. It is not a perfect system, but it is better than having a religious nut wanting to go to war because of his beliefs. At least our President went to war over money. I can understand greed. What I don't understand is people that want power over the lives of others, by using some kind of religion.

Answer 9

They were not the first to believe this after all the Jews did this too,but I think that the best solution is for the state never to interfere with peoples chosen religion and get on with it`s welfare, and the church should look after peoples spiritual needs while instructing the state when needed as to the proper way to behave as God has directed.

Answer 10

Thats why we need separation of church and state. No legislating religous doctrine
Yes the leader should have knowledge of the religions in the country

Answer 11

In this country, we would need to find one that was equally knowlagable about all religions, good luck finding anyone who is that studied, I doubt even the most learned personage would not know all that there is to know about all religions, for there is an equal amount of religions as there are people, but people are force fed religion so that it appears to be seperated into large groups.