both are equally needed in order for a society to survive...and not allowing them to blend together will not allow burden on its citizens to be too great...
2007-04-18 20:48:22 · 10 answers · asked by turntable 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
When they claimed separation of Church and State it is simple because they came from a country that had a Country Religion and everyone had to obey it. IF you wandered outside the States Religion you were persecuted. They also did this because they did not want church leaders to tell the country what they had to do. This is a seperation of Church and State, Not a Seperation of Church from State, and that is where so many people make the mistake. We need the church to survive, it is proven that the only strong nations are the ones with Christian believers. Note that the entire middle east is struggling because they have a false god. China was on the verge of collapse but because of all of the Christians in the underground church in China it is now becoming a strong country. All through out history when people turn their back on the one true God , their nation falls, but when people worship the one true God their nation thrives. Note how Israel was able to win a war against all of the countries on every side of them in six days. This was a act of the one true God.
2007-04-18 20:58:23 · answer #1 · answered by gigi 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
you assume that "church" can take an unbiased role in the lives of "people". The reason that church need not be integrated w/ state is that the rules that govern "religion" are different across the multiple branches of religion. State however is setup to be a bland kind of "one model fits all" setup to not limit it's constituents but also give them some similance of order.
IF there were really only one church and one religion in the world, then sure maybe they could blend, but b/c there are 1000's of religions and "mine is right and yours is wrong" is the mentality behind a majority of them, then no..I dont need your idealogy crammed down my throat on the off chance I do happen to believe somethign different..
2007-04-19 03:53:26 · answer #2 · answered by m34tba11 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Religion is set up to promote morality in the hopes of a better society.
The state is set up to guarantee survival and security. The national interests are protected by the leadership to secure the state at all costs.
I don't want my religion to be incorporated in a philosophy that contradicts the basic fundamentals of right and wrong. If a prayer becomes a law, protected with full police and/or military powers, we don't have a prayer, we have a law.
The practice of anyones religion is a very personal and private matter and should not in any way be forced upon anyone else.... At least, not my religion!
2007-04-19 04:05:09 · answer #3 · answered by marnefirstinfantry 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Awesome. I've never heard it put that way. You are absolutely right. Power and freedom to both. So they can each deliver their best service. Wow. Which, incidentally, illustrates why the U.S. has been so successful in many ways. Unity and diversity, balance of powers, respect and cooperation between independent entities. I believe that people who hate this either fear the responsibility of freedom or just don't understand that the above virtues could possibly exist. The flow chart of constitutional American political power goes like this: God, then people, then the multiple institutions of church and state. And that's what we mean when we say, "freedom."
2007-04-19 04:07:58 · answer #4 · answered by shirleykins 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You could make the argument that religion is important for the survival of society but not any particular church. That is the beauty of the separation.
2007-04-19 03:54:20 · answer #5 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What I gathered from Jefferson's letters to one of his friends explaining his position when he was being criticized for it, was to prevent the Church to be corrupted by power and money. Jefferson also outlines that State would be responsible to fulfill social responsibilities of the nation thus releasing the Church from the obligation. However years later what Jefferson feared came true in the worst possible manner.
2007-04-19 03:55:57 · answer #6 · answered by Roy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both church and state are hungry for power. If we didn't have the separation it could be like Iran, where Church is in control of State.
2007-04-19 03:54:53 · answer #7 · answered by liberty11235 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
jolly good thinking,but the hierarchy of the chuch get involved in politics
2007-04-19 03:57:21 · answer #8 · answered by fatdadslim 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the intention was not to dilute the two
2007-04-19 03:52:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
sounds like a "muslim" thing what are you rally trying to say?
2007-04-19 03:53:27 · answer #10 · answered by Moonshadow 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋