Separation of Church and State: Good or Bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PlipPlop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PlipPlop

Guest
I’ve seen a lot of anti-secularism here, so I’m wondering what you folk dislike (or like) about it.

I am for separation, because when Church & State go together, little good comes from it.
 
Government should not influence religion, but religion should influence government.
 
buffalo said:
Government should not influence religion, but religion should influence government.
Click to expand...
How would you feel if your government was being influenced by Islam? Wicca? That would be no more fair to opposing viewpoints then if the Catholics had everything.
 
PlipPlop said:
How would you feel if your government was being influenced by Islam? Wicca? That would be no more fair to opposing viewpoints then if the Catholics had everything.
Click to expand...
It is.

Government is for the people, by the people.

The separation that is touted is false, it is nowhere in the constitution.
 
Seperation has it’s ups and downs.

One down, of course, would be that false religions such as Islam, Judaism and Mormonism are on the rise.
 
dnu said:
Seperation has it’s ups and downs.

One down, of course, would be that false religions such as Islam, Judaism and Mormonism are on the rise.
Click to expand...
Since it is clear the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles will our country fight to continue or lay down first to secularism then to domination by Islam?
 
Personally I think religion and the government should be separate because the Church shouldn’t be able to dictate outside of their specific religious community, and impose laws influenced by religion on non-religious people
 
As long as the left is running the show, we’ll probably just lie down and take the rabbit punches from behind. Three more years…
 
The State should not become entangled in matters of religion, however the influence of natural law on state actions and policies is not in every case a matter of religion. A State needs to recognize and consider the natural law in its actions and policies. It is often the case that it is people of religion who understand what that law entails and they have a duty and a right to influence decisions and legislation undertaken by the state.
 
I voted yes. My meaning was that the Church (any Church) should not be officially sanctioned by the State. That means that the state supports a certain religion to the exclusion of other religions.

I do NOT believe that religious principles should be separated from the State however. Without religion, there can be no shared morality. Without a shared morality (and a shared conscience) there can be no law. Law is founded on principles of shared morality. By removing religion and all its principles from the State, morality will suffer and laws will crumble.
 
Phoobie said:
Personally I think religion and the government should be separate because the Church shouldn’t be able to dictate outside of their specific religious community, and impose laws influenced by religion on non-religious people
Click to expand...
Do you think that non religious people should be able to impose laws influenced by philosophies such as humanism on religious people or is it only religious influence that should be outlawed whilst all other subjecti vely held notions are OK?
 
buffalo said:
Since it is clear the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles will our country fight to continue or lay down first to secularism then to domination by Islam?
Click to expand...
Is it clear? What part of the Constitution establishes this?
 
buffalo said:
Government should not influence religion, but religion should influence government.
Click to expand...
I agree

I put “no”, because if we had a hardcore Catholic with an actual backbone in our government, then we’d be set.

But thats not the case, instead we kid someone who supports abortion…
 
The seperations clause was written to protect religious establishments from the government. Not to protect government from religious ideals.
 
06convert said:
The seperations clause was written to protect religious establishments from the government. Not to protect government from religious ideals.
Click to expand...
Valid point. I regard as risible the secularist (for which read atheist) argument that relitiously inspired laws are in some way more deplorable than say philosophically inspired laws but that is another question.

Separation is good for religion. Look at the European established or quasi established churches in Scandinavia or the UK…utterly irrelevant institutions with barely a foothold in national life. Mere “hatch match and dispatch” social services for the middle classes and even that role in decline faced with widespread de facto atheism.

Separation was ordained by Christ when he rendered unto Caesar and unto God separately. Separation is good for the Church. It retains independence and an independent voice in a weatern world which is largely antagonistic to Christ and his Church.
 
PlipPlop said:
I’ve seen a lot of anti-secularism here, so I’m wondering what you folk dislike (or like) about it.

I am for separation, because when Church & State go together, little good comes from it.
Click to expand...
I think you confuse morals and religion. I believe the Constitution worded the separation of Church and State something like this. The government shall establish NO state religion. The rights of all citizens to practice the religion of their choice is protected. There will never be a State religion in the US.
 
I believe in separation of Church and State.

Anything left up to Government will more often than not go straight down the tubes.

What worries me more is the way in which popular culture in general heaps abuse upon all of Christendom.
This general hatred of religion by many of the secular forces is undoubtedly causing many souls to be lost.
Many of these people end up worshipping the State as their de facto God.
So when you think of it that way, Church and State are seperate because the State is in fact it’s own Church.
 
Most everyone should be Catholic because that is the truth.

Truth should be held up by the government, so the government should encourage the Church and protect it, and the government should of course be informed by Church teachings.

People have civil freedom to choose their religion, so the government should not be able to “impose” that on individuals by way of establishing any state church.

So I guess the answer to your question depends on what you mean by separation: If you mean as the Founding Fathers did, that the federal government shall not “establish” as a state religion any particular sect, requiring attendance and giving them money, I would say, no. But if you mean that the government should look only to secular principles on which to base laws: well, that’s downright dumb, and I’m against it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top