A
aspawloski4th
Guest
This is a sticky one. I absolutely do ont want my governement to be influenced by any thing that has a hint of Calvinism in it.
- Status
B
BillP
Guest
This is absolutely WRONG!
The “establishment clause” was expressly designed to protect the Government from being dominated by any single set of religious ideals. The Founding Fathers recognized that the first thing ANY State religion did was REQUIRE the adherence of the people.
As Catholics we should thank GOD every day that we live under a government with Freedom of Religion. Anyone who thinks differently should have a look at life in England or Ireland for Catholics in the 17th - 19th Centuries
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws_(Ireland
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Oh really? Let’s look at this very good point you made:
Exactly. Hence 06convert’s assertion that “the separation clause was written to protect religious establishments from the government. Not to protect government from religious ideals.”
The example you provided shows why religious establishments need protection from the government and implicitly asserts that separation of church and state is the answer.
Good job, despite your puzzlingly negative reaction to the very conclusion to which your spot-on example leads.
MY GENERAL THOUGHTS
I voted “yes,” as should be evident from what I wrote above. People are idiots if they rail against separation of church and state simply because some liberals and secularists happen to abuse its true meaning in order to support atrocities like abortion.
The fact of the matter is that without separation of church and state, we would find ourselves back in the day when governments demanded the right to appoint Catholic bishops and things like that. Separation of church and state is even better for the church than it is for the state, though it’s pretty darn good for the state, too.
Not to mention the fact that a lack of separation of church and state would be far more likely to lead to Islamic rule than Catholic rule. Islam and theocracy seem to fit quite snugly together. But in a Christian framework, the city of God and the city of this world just don’t fit together quite as well. A Christian theocracy is a walking contradiction, and for a Christian civilization, separation of church and state was a long time coming.
S
Saint_Sebastian
Guest
Plipplop, I do not believe it is physically possible to separate church and state as faith is a hidden belief. Anyone can work in state government and claim they have no faith motivated reasons for what they propose although we all know that every soul on earth possesses their own faith belief to whatever degree. Separation of church and state is a complete fallacy in any case. The best we can possibly declare is that the faith belief of our representatives are not allowed to dictate the faith beliefs of other representatives or it’s constituents. This would be the most honest solution for all Americans. Instead of separation of church and state the entire focus should shift to “equality in representation of faith beliefs within state functions”.
R
ryecroft
Guest
It sounds like some of you seem to think that the Church should have some say in the government - but if you allow the Catholic Church to have a say then to be fair each other religion should be able to have a say. You can not single out one religion and say this is the one that should influence the government - it’s o.k. for this particular religion to influence the governemnt but not for other religion. You can’t have it with one religion having influence but not any others having influence. So it’s better to just have no specific influence.
God Bless
Rye
God Bless
Rye
S
Saint_Sebastian
Guest
Rye, This is what I propose is that all religions should have equal opportunity to influence the functions of the state in this country. In many other nations that possess primary national preference in a specific religion of course are directed in their policies by that preferred religion. The US Constitution was designed to prevent a “preferred religion” while at the same time restricting the state from denying anyone the right to freely practice their religion of choice and to express it as it applies to functions of the state which is in fact our current understanding in representative debates in the USA.
L
Lycorth
Guest
When we separated Church from the state, the Church became marginalized and the state became immoral. It was one of the worst decisions Western civilization ever made.
E
elts1956
Guest
There is a difference between religious “beliefs” and morals, however so subtle it is. A person can be moral without a religious belief. The problem with our government now is that the majority of our representatives have chosen to ignore morals. No church structure should hold sway over secular government, but we must remember that all religions (at least Christian ones) support a moral structure. Our country was founded on Judeo Christian ethics. They are being ignored.
E
elts1956
Guest
Spirituality and morality should guide everyone, not specific religions. We, here in the states, have lost our lodestone, our morality, first in being “politically correct” in what we do and say rather than using common sense and morality to guide us. We are so far away from our Judeo Christian heritage, I don’t know if we will ever find our way back.
R
Rence
Guest
I am very much FOR separation of Church and State. I wouldn’t want to have to follow laws based on someone else’s religion, therefore, my religion should not be imposed on those of different (or no) faith. Laws should not be based on the religious views of the majority party - it’s changing more and more every day. Separation of Church and State and Freedom of Religion is very important to me.
R
Rence
Guest
I agree wholeheartedly.
S
Saint_Sebastian
Guest
Rence, I have only one question for you to answer; how would you ensure that all representatives of the State offer only opinions that are not motivated by their own religious beliefs? Human development and education proves that all humanity from all walks of life have and hold religious beliefs to a certain degree. The only possible way that I can see to develop a State that is void of religion is to have a State entirely comprised of atheist representatives.Do you see what I mean?
R
ryecroft
Guest
No where have I read where the Constitution says that the US is always supposed to follow Judeo Christian morals- or any morals of any religion for that matter. We can pursue what we choose to be it happiness with or without morals. I’m not saying this is right or wrong but the way it is. But I don’t want to wind up with a Theocracy which is why I find the seperation of church and state good - if the church was not seperate, people could be punished for things like not going to church - I think we saw when people were in a very religious based society, that people would wind up accused of many “wrongs” which had nothing to do with law as we have today but with religious “requirements” - that may sound good to some on here but what if those relgious requirements became Islamic or even Jewish? It’s fine as long as it’s Catholicism but when it’s another religon then I hear people saying “well that’s not my religion - that’s not right!” - but no matter who’s religion it used, there is no religious panacea that all can follow, respect and believe in. Melting pots have many different religions added.
God Bless
Rye
God Bless
Rye
L
Lycorth
Guest
As Catholics, we do not believe that full and proper morality can be achieved by anything less than full union with and submission to the teaching authority of the Church.
Yes, and any system that permits this to happen is invalid.
Then it makes no sense to state that our faith should not hold sway over secular governments. It is tantamount to saying that secularism is acceptable, that it is OK for God and His Faith to be kept out of certain parts of human life.
Our country was not founded on Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion. Our country was founded on Enlightenment era novelties, like secular government and the trammeling of religion. It didn’t take long for that to produce an utterly wicked and profligate modern culture, such as we have now.
R
Rence
Guest
Well, you can pretty much assure that if someone brings something to the table like, “Pork should be outlawed because of this that and the other”, or “women should be required to cover their hair in public because…”, or “blood transfusions should be outlawed because the Bible says…”, or “Men should be allowed more than one wife because…” or “I propose that adulterous women should be put to death…” or “I propose businesses should be sanctioned for operating on Saturdays…” or “the celebration of Christmas should be outlawed…” that is pretty much came from someone’s religious beliefs. And as over the top those examples sound, some of the laws that people are trying to pass sound over the top to others who don’t share the same morals/values/beliefs. You can’t violate others’ rights by forcing them to compy with another’s religion.
Representatives do offer opinions based on their own religious beliefs, how couldn’t they? You’re right about that. But they should be hindered from trying to impose those religious beliefs on others who don’t share those beliefs. Thankfully there’s a pretty good variety in the State, and in the country, and the constitution is there to guide lawmakers along the way. The People wouldn’t stand changes based on religion based on polls, and being a democracy, people can prevent those change with their votes.
D
dannyh010
Guest
After reading many of the posts to this question, I think the majority of the responders have completely missed the mark. There seems to be a huge error in the popular understanding of separation of church and state.
In answer to the poll, I voted “Yes”. The reason? The same one as was established by this county’s founding fathers.
As I understand the Constitution, it basically states two things: 1) the government cannot establish a state religion nor endorse or demean any particular religion (also known as the Establishment clause), and 2) the government cannot interfere with the free expression of religion (Expression clause).
Basically, the founding fathers setup separation of church and state to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government. I recently watched a great documentary called “Rediscovering God in America”, which briefly detailed how the fathers set up our government, what their views were toward the issue, and what they practiced.
In essence, the fathers were God-fearing, Christian men who were adamant that a society can be free only if it is moral. Christian principles were used in the authoring of our founding documents, and the fathers regularly prayed and held worship services in the Capital and other government buildings. In other words, they practiced their religion on government property!
Why? Because the Constitution clearly says the government cannot interfere with the free expression of religion. So, understanding this, the fathers regularly used government property to pray and worship. Today, this also means it is unconstitutional to ban religious displays on public property or forbid children from praying in school.
Today, I think what has happened is the general public lacks a proper education in their own history, combined with secular influences that have twisted the meaning of the Constitution to oust any expression of faith or belief in the public arena.
So, in summary, we have the right to pray, worship, and express our religious beliefs any way and place we choose, and we have the right to shape our culture and legal system according to what we believe.
In answer to the poll, I voted “Yes”. The reason? The same one as was established by this county’s founding fathers.
As I understand the Constitution, it basically states two things: 1) the government cannot establish a state religion nor endorse or demean any particular religion (also known as the Establishment clause), and 2) the government cannot interfere with the free expression of religion (Expression clause).
Basically, the founding fathers setup separation of church and state to keep government out of religion, not religion out of government. I recently watched a great documentary called “Rediscovering God in America”, which briefly detailed how the fathers set up our government, what their views were toward the issue, and what they practiced.
In essence, the fathers were God-fearing, Christian men who were adamant that a society can be free only if it is moral. Christian principles were used in the authoring of our founding documents, and the fathers regularly prayed and held worship services in the Capital and other government buildings. In other words, they practiced their religion on government property!
Why? Because the Constitution clearly says the government cannot interfere with the free expression of religion. So, understanding this, the fathers regularly used government property to pray and worship. Today, this also means it is unconstitutional to ban religious displays on public property or forbid children from praying in school.
Today, I think what has happened is the general public lacks a proper education in their own history, combined with secular influences that have twisted the meaning of the Constitution to oust any expression of faith or belief in the public arena.
So, in summary, we have the right to pray, worship, and express our religious beliefs any way and place we choose, and we have the right to shape our culture and legal system according to what we believe.
A
Aaron409
Guest
Right on Lycorth. Pope pius lX condemmed this view as erronous and wrong in his sylabus of errors. It was number 55 on the list. Here is what he said:
Pope Pius lX “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.”[Condemmed.
Also:
Pope Pius X condemned the separation of Church and state in France in his encyclical Vehementer Nos, writing: “That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. … Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.”[
Also:
Pope Leo Xlll: wrote in his encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum: “There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enact menu.”[59]
So all those that are arguing for it, hold a much different opionion than many of the Holy Fathers.
Pope Pius lX “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.”[Condemmed.
Also:
Pope Pius X condemned the separation of Church and state in France in his encyclical Vehementer Nos, writing: “That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. … Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.”[
Also:
Pope Leo Xlll: wrote in his encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum: “There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enact menu.”[59]
So all those that are arguing for it, hold a much different opionion than many of the Holy Fathers.
E
elts1956
Guest
It would be impossible to have a Republic dominated by one “religion”. All Christian Religions are structured differently, have different theological beliefs. I think our Founding Fathers were not religious, not belonging to any structured faith. BUT they were moral men who based the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence on Judeo Christian MORALS. We are getting morality and religion confused here. We can have a moral government run by moral people who are not necessarily religious. As several of our Popes have said, our representatives must acknowledge and follow NATURAL Law.
E
elts1956
Guest
As Catholics, we do not believe that full and proper morality can be achieved by anything less than full union with and submission to the teaching authority of the Church. Then no one is moral unless they are Catholic? Don’t think so.
So you believe in a theocracy? I don’t. And the ten commandments had nothing to do with the founding of our country? Where did Jefferson, Franklin etc. find their ethics.? So everyone who is in governement must believe in the Sacraments, honor the Pope’s infallibility, believe in a Triune God? Of course the enlightenment played a great part in our goverment, individual liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of dissent??? Get real.
L
Lycorth
Guest
I said full *and proper *morality. Unless you don’t believe the Catholic faith is a repository of anything unique or necessary for humankind’s moral development.
Yes. They’ve worked well in the past. Europe never did so well, culturally and spiritually, as when Europe was united under the Cross. What worked for Europe then will work for Europe now - and elsewhere.
It’s a benighted Catholic who thinks his religion should be subservient to a secularist state.
That’s the problem with the West today. We think we are so high and mighty because we live in a wealthy country with lots of material comforts, yet where God truly holds little to no sway. Who cares if our moral culture falls into the sewer and if we become profligate blasphemers? So long as the almighty state is never influenced by the wicked Church, it’s all good.
Nope. The founding documents of the United States prove that Christianity has nothing to do with America’s ideological foundations.
It’s ironic that God Bless America is sung when America has never blessed God.
Mostly, their ethics were shaped by Enlightenment-era thinking, namely Deism and similar trends. Their ethics were clearly shaped little by traditional European Christian thinking.
Of course - why should they not? Government is not a sacred institution wherein opponents of our Faith are justified in marginalizing even basic Christian ethics, as is the case today. Governments must adhere to Christian moral law, just like the rest of us.
This adoration of secularist governments is disturbing, but not surprising.
I am perfectly real, thank you. You, however, might benefit from a study of history from a perspective that is not riddled with anti-religious bias. I recommend Dr. Warren H. Carroll’s History of Christendom series (The Building of Christendom and The Glory of Christendom) and Regine Pernoud’s *Those Terrible Middle Ages! *if you want to see how good governments ought to be run.
People are too caught up in selfishness. It’s all about my rights, my liberties, *my *opinions. Me, me, me. Nary a thought for the common good of the nation as a whole or the direction a godless government is inevitably headed, much less for God and what He may think of His Church being marginalized and trammeled as it is. After all, Christ established a Church for us, and not secular government.
In a Catholic society, we’d have all the liberties and freedoms we needed, and we’d have a Catholic framework to build a moral and decent society to boot. That’s what we need, not self-righteous Enlightenment-era novelties.
- Status