Separation Of Church and State

[JOHNYJ]

It is not the Constitution that makes religion in America complcated,its the Supreme court.
The Constitution says 2 things. There can be no state religion and everyone is free to practice their own religion.
Allthis other stuff is the Supreme courts doing.

 

[Kristina_P]

buffalo:

You are faced with a choice. The country that was founded on Judeo-Christian morals or the “new” homogenized government where religious debate is removed from the public square.

Do you want to live in a country that is taken over by atheists? Muslims? Modernists? Or do you want to protect the roots of this country?

BTW - where is total separation laid out in the Constitution?

You seem to have read the first line of my post and then just stopped. When I refer to “total separation,” I refer to the principle that the government cannot and should not interfere with religion, and there should be no state religion. If there is no state religion, then it’s very difficult for any particular religion to “take over.” Ethics and morals, on the other hand, are not included under “religion” unless they are found in only one religion. For example, someone stated earlier that it would be near impossible to outlaw contraception because such a law would be based on one religion, not a shared value.
As for this “country taken over by atheists,” if the majority of the country is atheist, then we have been taken over fair and square. This is not the case yet, but if it becomes the case, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Thankfully, our country was built not only as a democracy, but as a democracy that allows minority rights. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Ba’hai, we all have the right to worship as we please. I don’t want to see any group lose that right.

 

[buffalo]

Kristina P.:

You seem to have read the first line of my post and then just stopped. When I refer to “total separation,” I refer to the principle that the government cannot and should not interfere with religion, and there should be no state religion. If there is no state religion, then it’s very difficult for any particular religion to “take over.” Ethics and morals, on the other hand, are not included under “religion” unless they are found in only one religion. For example, someone stated earlier that it would be near impossible to outlaw contraception because such a law would be based on one religion, not a shared value.
As for this “country taken over by atheists,” if the majority of the country is atheist, then we have been taken over fair and square. This is not the case yet, but if it becomes the case, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Thankfully, our country was built not only as a democracy, but as a democracy that allows minority rights. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Ba’hai, we all have the right to worship as we please. I don’t want to see any group lose that right.

Sorry - I don’t want any group to lose the free excercise of religon, either. What I am getting to is that when the country was formed it was founded on Judeo Christian principles. By the minority having so much political power it has severly eroded that foundation and will continue to do so in the future until we are a remnant of ourselves.

Bottom line question - are we OK with it and if not what shuld we do about it?

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

I can’t say I think all religions should be practiced freely. Those cult-ish religions are kind of creepy.

On the other hand, you can’t really force Catholicism on anyone. That’s not right.

But I guess what I really think of when I think of seperation of church and state is that my obedience lies first to the church and then to the state. The state says murder…opps! I mean “abortion”…is okay. God’s church says it’s not. I gotta go with God’s church. And if the law were ever to cross my faith, such as make the rosary illegal, I’d have to be a criminal.

So, it would be nice if the state could agree with the church. But at the same time, give to God what is God’s and give to Caesar what is Caeser’s.

So I picked…um…other.

 

[D_Quintero]

bump

 

[ben_dy]

buffalo:

You are faced with a choice. The country that was founded on Judeo-Christian morals or the “new” homogenized government where religious debate is removed from the public square.

Do you want to live in a country that is taken over by atheists? Muslims? Modernists? Or do you want to protect the roots of this country?

BTW - where is total separation laid out in the Constitution?

I agree - there is no total separation, as it is thought of today - inherent in the Constitution: in addition many laws are built upon religious principles (whether we dare say so or not - and, admittedly, some of those laws have undergone deconstruction) though to say so now - or to imply that there is subjective moral law - is certainly on the wane in our court systems.

I had to go with ‘some’ - I feel only some right to abridge others religious freedom and that only when it causes genuine ‘looniness’ that, frankly, breaks the law: yet I am aware that my beliefs are trampled daily and if I don’t stand for what is remaining, if we as a nation don’t stand up for those few religious rights remaining, I can only imagine a gradual drift into anarchy where all is allowed based upon individualism.

I believe that we need a new constitution - the fathers never thought of this one surviving - that will return us to our roots: if contemporary polls are correct, most American’s are a bit more than Deists and, I believe, would agree that the acknowledgment of our heritage might be a good thing when it respects the beliefs of the majority without doing away with the religious freedoms afforded the minority.

I actually fear that we - decades ago - gave into the atheists: hardly a majority but definitely the benevolent ‘nothing’ minority. And I would hate to see the day come - as it has in strictly secular European countries - when our Muslim friends would not be allowed to wear self-identifying religious garb for that is just a step away from banning the Roman collar, the distinctive habits of nuns, etc., in public. And I would have to go down dying not allowing the Muslim woman a head scarf, a Jewish man his yarmulke, or the priest his collar - yet it’s happening in Turkey, striving to be modern and secular - and similar bans are in place in Germany and France. Even if we’re looked upon as nothing but ‘quaint’ - like, for instance, the Amish - let’s not let the collar be outlawed! What will be next? I’ve had more than I can stand, already…