Separation of Church and State, do you agree with it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Most of us in this forum agree that there must be separation of church and state. I think the problem arises with regard to the application of that concept in particular issues that divide various religions. I am thinking of state legislations that counter one denomination’s religious persuasion, but not another’s. For example, is it OK for the State to use taxpayer’s money to fund artificial contraception (such as the distribution of condoms in schools)? To the Catholic Church, which does not favor artificial contraception, it is not OK. But to other Christian denominations that favor it, it is OK. So, how does the concept of “separation of church and state” apply in issues such as this, where various religious bodies are themselves divided?

Just want to know your opinion, folks.
 
Also this should be applicable for all religions and thoughts. Seperation of church and state should not mean the seperation of christianity and state only. It should be applicable to all religions and thoughts. Every thing to be separated from the state. It is not justifiable in teaching other religions , atheism or communisim with our tax money while keeping Christianity away from the mainstream of the society.A true separation means everything to be seperated and not only christianity. Other religions, atheism or communism should use there own resources to teach their teachings (Like what christians are using now) and not through universities,schools and colleges which uses government funds for their day today operation
 
rom422 said:
Most of us in this forum agree that there must be separation of church and state. I think the problem arises with regard to the application of that concept in particular issues that divide various religions. I am thinking of state legislations that counter one denomination’s religious persuasion, but not another’s. For example, is it OK for the State to use taxpayer’s money to fund artificial contraception (such as the distribution of condoms in schools)? To the Catholic Church, which does not favor artificial contraception, it is not OK. But to other Christian denominations that favor it, it is OK. So, how does the concept of “separation of church and state” apply in issues such as this, where various religious bodies are themselves divided?

Just want to know your opinion, folks.
Click to expand...
The law in the US is very simple, the US Govm’t cannot make a law that says everyone in the US must be Methodist or that it is against the federal law to be a Muslim.

That is it. The idea that the federal govm’t not buying condoms is somehow imposing a federal law to mandate Catholicism is not even in the same ballpark (no matter how many politicians or talking heads on TV try to make us think it is).

Interesting, many States did have an official religion. Read “Catholicism in America” you will learn how anti-Catholic early America was.
 
Since the Church and her sacrament of marriage predate the US (I’m not a US citizen) I would like the State not to interfere with the definition of marriage. Or tell Catholic hospitals what they can and can’t do. Or interfere with Catholic adoption centers, or universities.
 
Castello said:
Interesting, many States did have an official religion. Read “Catholicism in America” you will learn how anti-Catholic early America was.
Click to expand...
Maryland was founded by and for the protections of Catholics as a safe haven. Maryland was one of the few regions within the British Empire where a Catholic could hold office, though many Protestants also settled in Maryland.
 
Just to clarify -

In the phrase “separation of Church and State,” “State” does not mean the individual states that make up the United States of America. It means the larger sense of “State” as in a nation-state.
 
Dale_M said:
The separation of church and state protects religion from government interference. It is a good thing.
Click to expand...
I heartily agree. Having the state dictate my beliefs is a heinous personal infringement.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Just to clarify -

In the phrase “separation of Church and State,” “State” does not mean the individual states that make up the United States of America. It means the larger sense of “State” as in a nation-state.
Click to expand...
It refers to both – the State as a federal governing union (the Federal Goverment) and the states as separate autonymous entities.

Originally, the First 10 Amendments. only covered the Federal government. However, by evolving case law case law extension of that obligation or restriction is by virtue of the the 14th Amend. to the U.S. Constitution, most of the First 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution equally apply to the states and carry the same obligations as are placed on the Federal government. In other words, the 14th Amend. brings the obligations of the First Amend. to the individual states.

Imagine the ambiguity if states could pass a state sponsored religion – or advance one religion in one state. It would be different states with different religions dominating.
 
Wanted to add, but I was untimely, that this trend of case law began around 1925 and there’s a string of case law extending the original Ten Amendments of the Constitution to the states.

Constitutional scholars call this the “doctrine of incorporation” whereby the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment reaches back to almost every provision of the First 10 Amendments to the Constitution.

We could not have a federal government that was prohibited from engaging in the advancing one religion over another, or creating a state sponsored religion (rightly so), while the states could have an official religion and different ones among the states. Imagine the confusion. It was just so with speech, search and seizure, freedom to assemble, freedom of the press, the right to counsel, etc. could not be unevenly applied among the several states if the Bill of Rights did not also apply to the states as well.

I gave examples where states in fact did try and do that, in the opposite. In their zeal to adhere to the Establishment Clause of the First Amend., they were denying vaccinations to parochial school children, that were given to other children, and denying text books to school children that they had the capacity (and obligation) to give Those state laws had to be struck down as well, just as if New York state decided that it would adopt Lutheranism of Catholicism as the official New York State religion.
 
Absolutely they should remain separate…the State has no business dictating to me what I must believe to be an equal member in a plurlistic society we must acknowledge our differences and promise one another to honor 'that of God" in each other…compassion for our brothers and sisters of the world in matters of “God” should be the First thing we offer.
 
The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

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.

A key thought often overlooked is “an establishment of religion.”
Thus Congress shall make no law respecting a particular establishment of religion.
This is quite different from respecting religion in general. The limit is respecting one establishment over another.

Allowing the free exercise of religion is respecting religion in general.

Religion INFORMS people of higher moral values that transcend any one government. So informed, people of differing establishments of religion come together to form a government that determines how we will deal with one another.

We are NOT required to practice any religion at all. But, any society that abandons religion is not a society that is respected by mankind.

In the end, we answer to God, not to Man. We will have to account for all our decisions. Including how we governed ourselves through the votes we cast.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ailred, Yours is certainly the position found in several hundred years’ worth of Papal teaching as well as Vatican II. The Catholic ideal has always been that the state has a duty to support Catholicism where possible and that Catholic worship should be the one the government itself practices. Spain today is an example, though the Socialist party there did its best to bring an end to the arrangement. The primary reason for this has to do with the Catholic conception of society as an organic whole and not just as a collection of individuals who make a private contract with the country.

Obviously, in a country such as the US which has never had a Catholic majority, any kind of establishment of Catholicism would be both impossible and counterproductive. In theory, though, the US Constitution does not actually prohibit individual states from establishing a religion. The Church of England was the established church in Virginia, and was disestablished by a vote of the Virginia legislature sometime about 1783, but it needn’t have been if the Virginians had wished otherwise. This is now very much in the abstract because the conception of separation of Church and State in the US has moved far beyond the 18nth Century.
 
It might surprise many to learn that the Founders were no conservative Evangelicals, and of course none were Catholic.

The founders were deists and unitarians, a very far cry from the Evangelicals want to make them out as being in their revised vesrion of US history.

I am very gratefull for church/state seperation. I live in the South where church and state are united. And the church in question is not Catholic. In the south the state church is Baptist.

Baptists are anti alcohol, so they vote the counties dry, regardless of the individuals right to decide for themselves, not here the Baptists take that right away.

They say drinking defiles the temple of the Holy Sprit, so no booze.

But nearly everyone smokes cigareetes which also defiles the temple, but the south makes fortunes from tobacco, so suicide by cigarette is fine and dandy.
 
I think the Church needs to back off from the government and the government needs to back off from the Church…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top