Isn't oppenly advocating Judeo-Christian values as a politician a violation of separation of church and state?

Question

Come to think of it isn't the religious right in violation of separation of church and state for being a political organization which openly advocates Christian values and desires (such as banning abortion and teaching Creationism in schools)?

What of Faith-based initiative, that violates separation of church and state and it is state funded hiring discrimination.

Answer 1

It depends on what you mean by "advocating".

If you mean a politician who says what their personal faith is, and how that faith influences their personal choices -- not at all. Nothing in the Constitution requires a person to ignore or deny what they believe.

If you mean "advocating" in the sense of promoting or sponsoring, then it would depend on the context. If the politician tried to impose their religion on others as as a matter of law -- either directly by regulating worship, or indirectly by regulating conduct based solely on religious dogma -- -- then, yes, that would be invalid under the constitutional doctrine (even if they can get around that doctrine by claiming the reason is non religious -- it's still unethical).

However, if the politician was a vocal proponent for religious issues as a private person, but didn't try to impose their religious views on others as a matter of law, then no -- that's perfectly acceptable behavior keeping the state and churc distinct.

Separate (here) means "distinct" = not the same. It does not mean isolating one from the existence of the other.

Answer 2

Well looks like logic has escaped you...the First Amendment does not have the words "Separation", "Church", or "State anywhere in the text...it states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The separation you speak of was in a letter from Jefferson to a friend...so I do not think personal correspondence counts for law or perceived rights...in all reality if you read the Constitution literally, which is how the Founding Fathers wanted it...not allowing someone to pray at a school or in a government building is a violation of the 1st Amendment...the Constitution is not a document that is meant to have underlying meanings, it was written in straight forward language...what you really should be worried about is Judges over stepping their Constitutional limits and legislating...how would you feel if a judge said it was illegal to be a Liberal or by talking about being an Atheist you were violating someone's Civil Rights...I am by no means a Bible thumper,(I actually believe in God, but not organized Religion), so you can't hit me on that one..but I believe, as a Historian and a Political Scientist, that the Constitution should be read and interpreted literally, it is not a Harry Potter book with hidden meanings...and by no means should we take someone's personal correspondence and use it to make laws...that would be like you emailing a friend and saying, even jokingly or not in that way it was perceived, that it was ok to have sex with goats…and then someone labeling you a goat ******…

Answer 3

Have you read the U.S. Constitution? Can you point out to me where in there, outside of the first ammendment where it says that Congress shall sanction no church as an official church of the state, do it mention a separation of church and state? Find me that and we can have this discussion. Until then, politicians are people and some people have religious views. We are not meant to be a completely secular society. Religion played a role in the founding of this country and the fathers decided that there will be no ONE SPECIFIC religion under which all citizen must fall. But it does not say that politicians cannot use their own judgement and minds to make decisions. And what do most people base their judgements on, thats right, faith, if they have it. And faith comes through religion for most people. And your religious values tend to be your own values so I have a hard time seeing why so many people do not understand this concept.

Answer 4

The social, political, and other freedoms we enjoy are thanks to the Founding Fathers being largely Christian or influenced by Christian beliefs. You better thank God that this country was founded by individuals who were mostly Christian.

There are other religions out there which are, in the way they are practiced (or in other respects), very intolerant. Homosexuals are killed, brutally. So are people who do not adhere to their particular religious beliefs. We've seen evidence of this type of religious persecution in Waco TX, Jonestown, 9/11, etc.

In very prestigious universities in Asia, studies of the USA and other countries have shown that our Christian beliefs are a large part of our financial success. In very strict Communist countries, Christianity is being taught in several prestigious schools to give the students an edge over the competition.

People will always have religious beliefs. Do you really want to exclude Christians from American Politics? Or would you prefer people of other religious beliefs to run this country?

And, by the way, the so-called Separation of Church and State only forbids the Government from declaring a Federal or State Religion. Any ban on worship or expression of any religious view is a violation of the Human Rights Amendments to the US Constitution.

If you disagree, go back and read pre-revisionist history of the USA (before the anti-JudeoChristian writers, lecturers, and publishers started to "clean" religion from US History). Find some 50 year old history books (or older). Try also some modern, "politically incorrect" history books based on the actual writings of the Founding Fathers and the older historians.

God bless y'all.
><>

Answer 5

Yes, but as you well know this country and its government was founded by people fleeing from religious discrimenation. When all was said and done officials signed "the" piece of paper that says that "they" have the freedom of religion (We the people does not mean everyone in the United States, it means we the people who wrote this constitution). What they meant by this is that they would not be persecuted by other countries for thier Christian beliefs, not that we actually had the right to openly practice any religion we choose. We can do anything behind closed doors as long as the government has no idea what it is, but when it comes to public activity we are only allowed to do what the politicians believe is right.
Since the goverment was founded on this belief, it will always be run by people who hold a similar belief.

Answer 6

Advocating laws (as in saying it should be) and passing laws to enforce Judeo-Christian values are two different animals.

Politicians can talk about it all they want and that is not unconstitutional, but it is unconstitutional to pass laws that enforce the doctrine.

All the others that you listed are nothing but laws that establish religion in violation of the constitution.

As far as the office of faith based initiatives is concerned, it was not created by law as an act of congress but with executive order so it does not violate the letter of the constitution regarding the first amendment, but it does thumb it's nose at the spirit of separation of church and state.

Answer 7

Back to school junior. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The government cannot mandate a particular religion, as England had done in the creation of the Anglican Church and the requirement that all citizens be a member of that church.

It does not say that the church cannot be involved in government or that the members of government cannot apply religious principles in making law, especially since most of our early laws were based on Judeo-Christian principles. it is only recently, with the advent of whiny America, that courts, not the legislature, have started saying that religion cannot be involved in government in any form. Go back and read some of the writings of the Founding Fathers and you will see that they thought that religion was the bedrock of government.

Answer 8

That whole thing in the 1st Amendment is about protecting religious people from the government and against establishing a state church like the Church of England. You remember the Church of England? That thing they were all running from...

Answer 9

Actions speak louder than words. As long as one's motivation is not to shove their beliefs on others or in laws that don't consider ALL religions as equal than there should be little or no problem with open advocacy of religion and state being combined in any manner. Unfortunately it rarely works that way. It is best they are kept separate.

Answer 10

People can be both religious and political without violating the separation of church and state. Even politicians are allowed to express their moral beliefs.

If there are any gray areas you can bet that the ACLU will be taking them to the supreme court.