F
followingtheway
Guest
Well…do you?
- Status
J
jmjconder
Guest
**I believe if you read the founding documents…the USA was based on clear religious beliefs.
Our difinition of separation of Church and State was not was intended by our founding faithers. All of “us” - over the years - have mucked it all up.**
Our difinition of separation of Church and State was not was intended by our founding faithers. All of “us” - over the years - have mucked it all up.**
A
Angela77
Guest
I chose that I do agree with it. However, it’d be neat to have a utopian society of Catholics where there was no separation. But, considering the current state of the world, I think separation of church and state is necessary.
Although I do think the church and state are intertwined more than they are intended to be. All of America’s values are pretty much based on religion, and that is reflected in the laws.
Although I do think the church and state are intertwined more than they are intended to be. All of America’s values are pretty much based on religion, and that is reflected in the laws.
A
Angela77
Guest
Actually, Thomas Jefferson spoke about a “wall of separation” between the church and state during his presidency in his letter to the Danbury Baptists.
loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
D
Dale_M
Guest
That is a very questionable claim.
The separation of church and state protects religion from government interference. It is a good thing.
C
Castello
Guest
Exactly, it was an idea put forth by Jefferson. It is NOT some part of the Constitution or law of the land.
The First Amendment to the Constitution has been perverted.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
R
rom422
Guest
I believe that there should be a separation of church and state in the sense that each should be free from the other’s interference. However, separation here does not have to mean non-cooperation. When it comes to activities related to common goals, as in emergency humanitarian activities, the efforts of both societies may beneficially be coordinated.
D
dandingo
Guest
The founding fathers did not intend for separation of Church and State. They intended for separation of Church from State. They did *not *want to allow a state-run Church, which is what they fled from. They knew that a state-run religion would inevitably lead to tyranny.
Just as another had posted …
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
Just as another had posted …
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
B
BVM_1221
Guest
Absolutely. Power corrupts, and lots of power corrupts lots of institutions. The Catholic Church has not been immune to this sad trend. :nope:
POWER also leads to the assumption of a certain amount of immunity. Immunity also corrupts. The child abuse scandles of the Catholic Church, in the USA, Europe (and especially Ireland), and the rest of the world shows what happens when the church gets the minset that it is not fully answerable to civil authoraties if the prestige of the Church is endangered.:sad_yes:
Oh, and not just the Catholic Church. Protetants, Muslims, Jewsm and any other Religion with its finger in the political pie.
The Flip side. What country has the highest percentage of its population attending various religious services weekly? Yup, the USA.
meltzerboy
New member
I agree in the sense that the State should NOT be allowed to IMPOSE its beliefs on any religion, ENDORSE any specific religion, or RESTRICT or otherwise interfere with the practice of any religion, provided the religion does not harm or endanger the citizens and residents of the State. IOW I believe there should be as little State interference with religion, either by means of financial or other support or restriction, as possible. I also believe that no religion should IMPOSE its beliefs on the State in a kind of government-sponsored religious theocracy. At the same time, I think all people of any religion should be allowed to PARTICIPATE in the process of government and EXPRESS their views–religious and otherwise–through legal means.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
The concept of a separation between church and State (which BTW is NOT in the Constitution) is to protect the CHURCH from the STATE, not vice versa.
Now we have people saying that if a church even mentions any political candidate, it is violating this principle. Balderdash! The Founders knew that we need our faith informing public debate and if we don’t have any, the Republic will soon crumble. Priests and pastors are afraid to say anything remotely political for fear of losing their tax-exempt status, but the federal government should NEVER threaten such a thing.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
I believe Church and State should be institutionally separate in that the leaders of each should be different people. The government does not have the authority to tell the Church what to do (except in some purely secular matters), and even if the Church technically does have the authority to tell the State what to do you run a strong risk of corruption problems if Church leaders have too much secular temporal power.
What I don’t support is an ideological separation of Church and State. Leaders of the State can and should take the beliefs they hold by divine faith into account in making public policies and even, varying according to the details of the situation, the less than totally binding guidance of the bishops. So should voters.
Also I support freedom of religion but I think the model of a secular state which does not endorse any religion is not strictly necessary. It can be a nice truce in a religiously diverse nation like the United States and could even act as a “fence” to protect freedom of religion, but ultimately I don’t currently see a non-negotiable problem with the government of a majority-Catholic country officially acknowledging Catholicism, giving the Church certain extra rights not granted to other religious institutions, etc. as long as the State doesn’t attempt to impose its will on ecclesial matters and preserves everyone’s right to follow their own beliefs privately or in groups.
What I don’t support is an ideological separation of Church and State. Leaders of the State can and should take the beliefs they hold by divine faith into account in making public policies and even, varying according to the details of the situation, the less than totally binding guidance of the bishops. So should voters.
Also I support freedom of religion but I think the model of a secular state which does not endorse any religion is not strictly necessary. It can be a nice truce in a religiously diverse nation like the United States and could even act as a “fence” to protect freedom of religion, but ultimately I don’t currently see a non-negotiable problem with the government of a majority-Catholic country officially acknowledging Catholicism, giving the Church certain extra rights not granted to other religious institutions, etc. as long as the State doesn’t attempt to impose its will on ecclesial matters and preserves everyone’s right to follow their own beliefs privately or in groups.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
That’s right. Jefferson is not exactly my favorate Founding Father, and this is one of the reasons for that.
N
Nate13
Guest
I felt replying with a yes would not make my opinion clear so I responded with other. I believe in the separation of Church and State as the founders of the country intended it to be.
Notice this doesn’t say Congress shall make no law respecting God. I believe the country was founded on the principle of the belief in one God by which we were endowed with unalienable rights. In my opinion the law was put in place to prevent the government from subscribing to one particular path to this God, however belief in one God was established as part of the Constitution.
C
Castello
Guest
The “founding fathers” were seeking wealth and power, to be out from under the heavy taxes and other acts of political thuggery forced on the moneyed class by the British govm’t.
P
PerfectTiming
Guest
I agree with Separation of Church and State. What I don’t agree with it people then using that to dismiss everyone who has a religious opinion because of it.
B
buffalo
Guest
The separation of Church and State is a recent construct.
If there is to be any wall it is a one way wall preventing government form making a law imposing a particular religion on its people. However, religious views should inform government and the proposition that is closest to truth should eventually be ingrained in the culture and thus government.
If there is to be any wall it is a one way wall preventing government form making a law imposing a particular religion on its people. However, religious views should inform government and the proposition that is closest to truth should eventually be ingrained in the culture and thus government.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
I won’t comment on the assertion the Founding Fathers were seeking wealth and power, but it’s my impression the taxes were pretty moderate but illegal under a traditional interpretation of British law which said a region must have representation in Parliament for it to be taxed. The Tories argued that America had “virtual representation” because Parliament looked out for the good of all British subjects and so we could be taxed, which of course was a load of bologna. Although, this was actually a more modern interpretation of representation in government taken by the Tories, as opposed to the more radical Whigs who maintained the old view that representation in Parliament was a matter of representing territories not people per se. There was some discussion on both sides of the Atlantic of forming a Parliament in which members would come from and represent all territories under the Crown, but nothing ever came of it, in part no doubt because the Americans lost patience and rebelled.
A
adrift
Guest
L
Leegal
Guest
I believe the state or federal govenment cannot create a state sponsored religion. Nor advance one religion over another.
But this is not a yes or no answer.
The state has the responsibility, where it has previously refused, to provide vaccinations to children whose parents want them regardless of the school in which they attend. It took case law to see that the overall public health was the issue – not religion. The refusal to vaccinate the children was based upon the principle of separation of Church and state and that, somehow, by vaccinating these children the state would be sponsoring religion.
Of course, on the other hand, the parent then has a right to refuse vaccinations for religious reasons - but the state cannot withhold them from parochial school children based upon a principle of Church and State.
Then there has been case law on the issue of loaning textbooks to parochial schools. The state has an interest in seeing that all children are properly educated to meet the standards of the curriculum. It took case law to allow states to loan conforming texts in subjects to go to religious schools so that the children would be taught the state curricula. Again, the states (some) had refused to loan text books to parochial schools based upon the fact that they would be sponsoring a religion. But, in fact, by providing the texts they were sponsoring education which the state has the authority and obligation to do – to see that all children are equally educated. It took case law to overturn laws that those states may have fashioned which stood upon the principle of separation of Church and state by prohibiting the loan of texts.
Now, when a religion crosses over into criminal activity, I make a distinction. The state has an interest in intervening. The states prohibit polygamy, but rarely prosecute for polygamy where the people are consenting adults. Whether I agree or not, some people believe it’s their religious Principle and they must live this Principle as the path to God.
Where the state gets involved (and only two times in 50 years in Utah) were two men who married underage girls prosecuted – the opertative word being “underage.” Further one was a police officer with a sworn duty to uphold the laws of Utah, which prohibits polygamy, so he broke his oath as an officer – and he married his wife’s younger sister who was not of age. The second married and raped a 13 year old. He also was not paying child support for his children.
So, those two were prosecuted – not for polygamy per se (a religious Principle), but for the acts that rose out of these unlawful marriages – which include forced marriage of anyone of any age, marriage to a woman who cannot consent, or incest. In that case, the state is not interfering in the religious practice of polygamy but interfering in a criminal practice that is hiding behind the religion.
- Status