Separation of church and state
Is it necessary?
Even though I am a conservative, personally, I consider it to be a necessary
component of the truly civilized world. However, my reason might be different
from others. My reason being that for a state to function well, religion is not
a necessary component. Therefore, you do not have to tie religion into the state
affairs.
In middle ages, you do have to impose religion on state affairs, reason
being that not all people are educated, therefore they need a way to explain
everything that is happening around them. The ruling authority sees this and
introduces religion into the equation. In a way, it helps stablize the society.
However it is not true anymore.
Show me were in the constitution it says seperation of church and state. It
doesn't exist. What it does say is that a state cannot make one religion
mandatory, basicly they didn't want a bunch of small Englands.
Quote by RebuShow me were in the
constitution it says seperation of church and
state. It doesn't exist. What it does say is that a state cannot make
one religion mandatory, basicly they didn't want a bunch of small
Englands.
which is true, separation of church and state quote on quote does not exist in
the constitution.
Well seperation of church and state isn't really a big problem in Kansas, I mean
we have a group of Witches that clean a highway that is owned by a state. Now I
bet there are some people who don't like the Witches having a sign that says
that they clean this section of the road, but who cares.
The founding fathers of the United States could not and did not create a
document that confines and restricts religious beliefs. I've read articles from
top scholars that identify specific reasons why the first Constitutional
convention did not specifically spell out the role of religion in the new
country. They were allowing for the states to, over time, identify and build
their own levels religious of religious importance.
Think about it. The more the Constitution would have originally stated, the
more prone the fledgling nation would have been to defeating its own destined
direction. We're in trouble today because we've layered so much *bs* on top of
the Constitution that the original document and the intentions of the founding
fathers don't hold much daily relevance to individual lives anymore.
It's really a shame. Lawmakers should remember that we can still get pissed and
revolt...
Quote by hiddensnakehandsSeparation
of church and state Is it necessary? Even though I am a
conservative, personally, I consider it to be a necessary component of
the truly civilized world. However, my reason might be different from
others. My reason being that for a state to function well, religion is
not a necessary component. Therefore, you do not have to tie religion
into the state affairs.
i agree with you there... i think
that church and state need to be separated for any kind of body to function. if
religion is brought into the equation then things just get even more divided.
Quote by RebuWhat [the constitution] does
say is that a state cannot make
one religion mandatory, basicly they didn't want a bunch of small
Englands.
Actually, the first amendment specifically targets congress. At the time,
numerous states had their own established religions.
As far as the main subject of the topic, while it is impossible to legislate
belief, it is necessary that legislation reflect the morality of the people
being legislated on behalf of. Removing all religious influence from any and
all law is a dangerous and unconstitutional proposition, since the Constitution
specifically cites that there may be no religious tests for holding office. By
that token, it is equally prohibited to have tests to ensure that elected
officials do not have the influence of
their beliefs in their carrying out of tasks.
Example:
Let us say a predominantly Jewish district elected a state representative who
happens to be Jewish. Obviously his decisions in office will be flavored by his
faith, as well they should be. When you elect a man, you elect everything that
he is.
Well, I believe all along politics and religion have been closely linked... So
removing religion completely from the state isn't possible and can even be
harmful as I personally believe that the 10 commandments are the basic of all
laws. Even the iron curtain have the orthodox church to help support them in
their rule. Hilter basically removed the power of the religious leaders and
brought in ww2.
But depending entirely on the belief of a certain religion can be bad as well.
Considering there are 'heretics' that mis-inteprete the meaning of certain
scriptures and abuse it to their own gain/objective.
I believe in the separation of church & state simply as common sense, quite
apart from my religious beliefs (Jesus said it was bad to have them together,
basically). If I want to worship Jesus in a Christian state, all well &
good. If I want to worship Allah or Shiva or Rev. Moon (crazy cult leader for
those who don't know), I'm screwed. Go to Iran & you'll find the same, only
it's Allah-only. While it may go my way for a while, what happens when it swings
another way?
As far as legislation goes, morality is pretty much the same throughout bar some
nutjobs. Ignore them & go with the majority, while protecting the rights of
the minorities... none of that requires religion. It just requires integrity
(sadly, this is more lacking than the religion).
IMO, religion is not only an unnecessary component of government, but a harmful
one.
The "Congress shall make no law for or against a religion" (sorry I
forgot it half way through) bit only says don't make comment - meaning no
involvement at all.
Quote by Seraphim84Well, I believe all
along politics and religion have been closely linked... So removing religion
completely from the state isn't possible and can even be harmful as I personally
believe that the 10 commandments are the basic of all laws. Even the iron
curtain have the orthodox church to help support them in their rule. Hilter
basically removed the power of the religious leaders and brought in
ww2.
But depending entirely on the belief of a certain religion can be bad as well.
Considering there are 'heretics' that mis-inteprete the meaning of certain
scriptures and abuse it to their own gain/objective.
Politics
& religion, yes, but politics isn't government - politics is how you get
power, government is how you use it. The state is to do more with government
than politics.
I suppose I'm probably a heretic (but then so is anyone who disagrees with any
doctrine of any denomination/sect of any religion, i.e. everybody in existence,
ever), but Jesus said that faith in him is all that really matters - the 10
commandments are a good guideline, but they're not absolute anymore. To top it
off, they're Christendom-centric, while the US isn't (I assume this thread is
US-centric?) - a lot carries over, but to say those in particular are the ones
to go by is as bad as saying we should all follow the Hindu laws & not eat
beef anymore (I don't much like it myself, but no thanks!).
And Hitler didn't start WWII because he removed religious leaders from power,
it's because he did everything he said he would (eliminate unemployment &
inflation etc., more too, look it up) & played on the people's fears (e.g.
anti-semitism). Other reasons too, but if you're right, it was a mighty small
part of it.
Quote by bladerunner2005Lawmakers
should remember that we can still get pissed and
revolt...
Not likely! Well not if the Army stays with them.
Once, it would've worked... now they'd mow you down.
Separation of church and state
Is it necessary?
Even though I am a conservative, personally, I consider it to be a necessary component of the truly civilized world. However, my reason might be different from others. My reason being that for a state to function well, religion is not a necessary component. Therefore, you do not have to tie religion into the state affairs.
In middle ages, you do have to impose religion on state affairs, reason being that not all people are educated, therefore they need a way to explain everything that is happening around them. The ruling authority sees this and introduces religion into the equation. In a way, it helps stablize the society. However it is not true anymore.
Show me were in the constitution it says seperation of church and state. It doesn't exist. What it does say is that a state cannot make one religion mandatory, basicly they didn't want a bunch of small Englands.
which is true, separation of church and state quote on quote does not exist in the constitution.
Well seperation of church and state isn't really a big problem in Kansas, I mean we have a group of Witches that clean a highway that is owned by a state. Now I bet there are some people who don't like the Witches having a sign that says that they clean this section of the road, but who cares.
The founding fathers of the United States could not and did not create a document that confines and restricts religious beliefs. I've read articles from top scholars that identify specific reasons why the first Constitutional convention did not specifically spell out the role of religion in the new country. They were allowing for the states to, over time, identify and build their own levels religious of religious importance.
Think about it. The more the Constitution would have originally stated, the more prone the fledgling nation would have been to defeating its own destined direction. We're in trouble today because we've layered so much *bs* on top of the Constitution that the original document and the intentions of the founding fathers don't hold much daily relevance to individual lives anymore.
It's really a shame. Lawmakers should remember that we can still get pissed and revolt...
i agree with you there... i think that church and state need to be separated for any kind of body to function. if religion is brought into the equation then things just get even more divided.
Actually, the first amendment specifically targets congress. At the time, numerous states had their own established religions.
As far as the main subject of the topic, while it is impossible to legislate belief, it is necessary that legislation reflect the morality of the people being legislated on behalf of. Removing all religious influence from any and all law is a dangerous and unconstitutional proposition, since the Constitution specifically cites that there may be no religious tests for holding office. By that token, it is equally prohibited to have tests to ensure that elected officials do not have the influence of their beliefs in their carrying out of tasks.
Example:
Let us say a predominantly Jewish district elected a state representative who happens to be Jewish. Obviously his decisions in office will be flavored by his faith, as well they should be. When you elect a man, you elect everything that he is.
Well, I believe all along politics and religion have been closely linked... So removing religion completely from the state isn't possible and can even be harmful as I personally believe that the 10 commandments are the basic of all laws. Even the iron curtain have the orthodox church to help support them in their rule. Hilter basically removed the power of the religious leaders and brought in ww2.
But depending entirely on the belief of a certain religion can be bad as well. Considering there are 'heretics' that mis-inteprete the meaning of certain scriptures and abuse it to their own gain/objective.
I believe in the separation of church & state simply as common sense, quite apart from my religious beliefs (Jesus said it was bad to have them together, basically). If I want to worship Jesus in a Christian state, all well & good. If I want to worship Allah or Shiva or Rev. Moon (crazy cult leader for those who don't know), I'm screwed. Go to Iran & you'll find the same, only it's Allah-only. While it may go my way for a while, what happens when it swings another way?
As far as legislation goes, morality is pretty much the same throughout bar some nutjobs. Ignore them & go with the majority, while protecting the rights of the minorities... none of that requires religion. It just requires integrity (sadly, this is more lacking than the religion).
IMO, religion is not only an unnecessary component of government, but a harmful one.
The "Congress shall make no law for or against a religion" (sorry I forgot it half way through) bit only says don't make comment - meaning no involvement at all.
Politics & religion, yes, but politics isn't government - politics is how you get power, government is how you use it. The state is to do more with government than politics.
I suppose I'm probably a heretic (but then so is anyone who disagrees with any doctrine of any denomination/sect of any religion, i.e. everybody in existence, ever), but Jesus said that faith in him is all that really matters - the 10 commandments are a good guideline, but they're not absolute anymore. To top it off, they're Christendom-centric, while the US isn't (I assume this thread is US-centric?) - a lot carries over, but to say those in particular are the ones to go by is as bad as saying we should all follow the Hindu laws & not eat beef anymore (I don't much like it myself, but no thanks!).
And Hitler didn't start WWII because he removed religious leaders from power, it's because he did everything he said he would (eliminate unemployment & inflation etc., more too, look it up) & played on the people's fears (e.g. anti-semitism). Other reasons too, but if you're right, it was a mighty small part of it.
Not likely! Well not if the Army stays with them. Once, it would've worked... now they'd mow you down.