Does separation of church and state mean I should not allow my religious views to affect my political views?

Question

Wouldn't this also mean a lack of religious beliefs should not affect political views as well?

Answer 1

First of all, the origin of "separation of church and state" was from a letter to a collegue by Thomas Jefferson. Unlike current rumor, it is NOT found in the U.S. Constitution. The only thing mentioned is that the government cannot form a religion. Other than that, that's all that is mentioned. So you can merge your political views and your religious views, as it should be.

Answer 2

No where in the Constitution does it say seperation of church and state. That said it is a tried and true principle of our Constitution and our way of governing ourselves. That legal document, the founding of our government today though, has no hold over you as an individual. It does have a hold over you if you serve the government in an official capacity.

This is where Immanual Kant's concepts of private and public reasoning come in. Read Kant sometime if you can. I also recommend Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, Adam Smith and the Federalist Papers.

We create our government based off of our commonly held personal views. In this country we are at the very least nominally Christian and we have made our laws to fit that mold. However, we were also born of the desire to be whatever religion we wanted to be without persecution and so we find that our government should not dictate to us what religion we may and may not be.

However, that doesn't mean you can't or should't vote your religous beliefs. It doesn't mean you shouldn't allow your religous views to affect your political views. And it leads to all sorts of fun paradoxes and oxymoronic situations.

And the lack of religous beliefs is in itself a religous belief. I point to the Supreme Court Ruling that Athiesm is covered under the freedom of religion.

Here is one possible example. Publicly and legally you have the right to be a homosexual. Privately an individual may have the personal belief, based religously, that this is terribly wrong and shouldn't be done. You also hold the belief that the government shouldn't tell you what your, and thus others, religous beliefs should be.

So now you know that the person running for city council is homosexual but is the most qualified person for the position. Who do you vote for? Your personal belief is that this isn't okay but the person is the most qualified.

Or, you think its okay to be homosexual. Or that drinking alcohol is wrong, or that... well you get the point.

It is up to you to decide how you will make your political choices. And your religion will play a part in it and should. But in the end you, and only you, can figure out how much your religous and other personal beliefs will co-exist with your religous views. But in the end, the person who tries to have two competeing belief systems at the same time doesn't ussually do so well with themselves.

Answer 3

If A person was brought up in a particular manner based on the principles of his/her religious background then it would be extremely difficult to divorce the religious teachings from the person's overall belief about life. If a person learns that freedom of choice is wrong then it must affect the person's feelings about abortion. It would be wonderful if we could separate church and state but it is impossible in a nation that has strong religious feelings about almost everything. Religion will always find its way into politics no mater how hard we try to keep it out. Laws that are passed by using Judaic-Christian beliefs will not necessarily be acceptable for many others. This is one of the reasons tha religion should be kept out of politics.

Answer 4

Separation of church and state absolutely does NOT mean that you shouldn't allow your religious views to affect your political views. It very simply means what is stated in the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States: That Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. In other words, our government can not create, or establish, a religion and demand by law that we, the people, adhere to it. Further, our government can not outlaw ANY religion and make its practice a crime.
In addition, any person that really, seriously, has their religion in their heart will naturally have their political views affected by it. Religion, when practiced correctly, is both beautiful and sublime. It is also very powerful and will affect everything you do. Every decision you make is based on your moral convictions, or lack of them. It would be impossible separate your political and religious views if you really gave your self to your faith, body and soul.

Answer 5

Your religious views will affect your political views as they will affect all things in your life. Separation of church and state merely means that the church is no longer a governing body of the people as it was in Europe and other places.

Answer 6

Nope. Your political views should represent what you believe is the best for the country. Seperation of Church and State is just there to prevent a single faith being forced upon people as it was in England at the time. I'm athiest and my beliefs as one do influence my political views. There's nothing wrong with that since my beliefs are part of who I am, as are yours.

Answer 7

Your views are YOUR views, the belong to you, they are your responsibility.

Seperation of Church and State means that the state may not mandate religion. The government can require everyone to be, say, a druid, to be allowed citizenship or participate in government.

Answer 8

No, but it means you should not expect your religious views to effect other people's political views.

Answer 9

Black Prince, wait on a minute!!! Marriage replaced into widespread via God? Who did God bypass his training to?? Are you asserting, while he supposedly created Adam and Eve, did he tell Adam regarding the sanctity of marriage, cos Eve could no longer persist along with his training!?? i think of we, as a species, have been nonetheless evolving. i do no longer have confidence we suddenly regarded as we are immediately! i think of we've been in basic terms doing what comes for sure, basically like each and every the different species on the earth. Jesus did no longer have something to do with how we habit ourselves while it comes the marriage! Take Mary case in point! SHE gets pregnant, and since the good e book says, via immaculate concept, and Joseph replaced into MADE to marry 2d hand products, as a thank you to communicate!! rules have been written via guy, to examine their very own schedule. very like politics! good for the goose, hoping to God the gander will persist with him! No such luck recently! LOL! it began off with a team of persons banding jointly, no longer via affection, yet for protection! It became accessible have been too many chiefs and not sufficient indians, all getting in distinctive guidelines until one good guy stepped as much as the plate and invented a picture for the persons to concentration on, and set down specific regulations and regs. It replaced into one among those gaining administration of a foul project, brainwashing in case you will!! As time went alongside, it replaced into had to characteristic greater regulations and taboos. That replaced into the only way he would desire to maintain those human beings jointly! the approach has been repeated persistently back down throughout the a while. some leaders went to the some distance left to maintain administration over his human beings, muslims and the Catholic faith. there is no longer plenty distinction between the two. The Catholics exercised cruelty to earnings administration basically because of the fact the Muslim faith does immediately. ALL rules are made via guy, and what fairly gets me is, neither faith practices what they pontificate! we are no longer servants of religion - we are persons, and that's our suited to chosen how we live, WHO we like, while and the place we do it, with out any interference from a gaggle of hypocrites!

Answer 10

I guess so... but the real concept was to prevent the government (federal and state) from endorsing any religion and giving it precedence over others.