Separation Of Church and State

  • Thread starter Thread starter D_Quintero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not like the idea of a state religion. I like the idea that we are free to worship a God of our understanding here in the US. However, I am so confused by this issue that I cannot form a real opinion.

Let me tell you about a situation here in the Central Valley. We have ‘sober living houses’ that are sponsored by an organization known as The Church of Modesto. It is an ecumenical organization of Catholic and Protestant Churches. One of the sober living homes is for women and children. They are required to attend 12 step meetings AND church services at the Southern Baptist Church because it is the primary sponsor of the home.

Some of the women there are refered by Drug Court. In other words, they are sent there as a condition of their probation or to avoid jail time after a relapse. The homes, therefore, are linked to the judicial system.

It would seem to be that, in the strict sense of the idea, this is a violation of Church and State, right?

The 12 step programs are the only programs offered these women for their recovery. There are step programs that do not incorporate a spiritual aspect to recovery from alcoholism or drug addiction. These programs are not offered.

Now, it would seem to me, that having the judicial system order people to 12 step programs or sober living housing that require church service attendance would be a violation of this axiom.

BTW - I have 13 yrs sober in AA and am a obedient daughter of the Holy Mother Church (most days, anyway) so I have no hidden agenda on this subject. I am, quite simply, flumoxed.
:confused:
 
RyanL hit on exactly what I feel the big problem really is – there can be no complete separation of the state and religion because all social philosophy is concerned with either the existence or no-existence of God (or gods). To say that Secular Humanism, the primary philosophical basis for most atheists and agnostics today, is any more valid, or less obtrusive on individual rights, than Christianity is absurd.

Yes, it is unconstitutional for government to establish Christianity as the de facto religion that everyone must adhere to, where any public presentation of a different philosophical/theological view was considered illegal. But just as much, it is unconstitutional to “establish” atheistic/agnostic beliefs as the operative “religion” of the state.

That is, unfortunately, exactly what is happening in our society. Any theological framework (“religion”) that opposes Secular Humanism’s atheistic foundation is being systematically rooted out of the public sector. Atheists cry foul when they hear anything they can relate to Christian history, values, or social customs, yet at the same time are demanding that we allow our own children to be indoctrinated by public education with their Secular Humanistic (atheistic/agnostic) ideology.

Although most deny it, a prominent Secular Humanist wrote an article completely accepting the premise that Secular Humanism is a religion.

We must continue to pray that efforts to marginalize our important beliefs are defeated wherever possible. Our society cannot stand without a Christian moral fabric to hold it together. I fear the day that God loses His patience with our nation’s immorality and His judgement rains down upon us.

May His Mercy sustain us, and His strength preserve us in our collective struggle against the evil one.

Peace,
javelin
 
I’ve always taken our first amendment for granted, not realizing the extent to which it is not mirrored in other constitutions. Here is an excerpt from France’s:

** Article 1
Code: 
   **       France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and       social Republic.
I added the red. See here for full text. America does not declare herself to be secular.
 
40.png
Petertherock:
I chose other because separation of Church and State is fiction. There is no such thing in the Constitution. There is a free excersize of religion clause which somehow the left wingnuts have twisted into no one can excersize religion in public.

Of course the Supreme Court doesn’t even believe in the Constitution anymore since they gave away our right to own and keep our property. Now thanks to the Supreme Court cities can confiscate our property and give it to private developers so they can increase their tax revenue. Thank God congress is working on a bill which would nullify this ruling. Let’s hope and pray this bill passes.
Click to expand...
Ditto, and hence my other vote.
 
Separation of Church and State is an error that has been condemned many times by the Church. Here is one of many examples:

“That the State must be separted from the church is a thesis absolutely false, a most mernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religion, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private worship, but a public and social worship to honor Him” (Pope Pius X, Vehementer Nos., 1906).

Separation of Church and state is an error.
 
40.png
LSK:
I do not like the idea of a state religion. I like the idea that we are free to worship a God of our understanding here in the US.
Click to expand...
The last state religion in American ended in 1839. The Congregationalist (and Unitarian) churches in the Bay State were funded by taxes. Even then there was freedom of worship. I don’t get the fear in America over a theocracy or state religion. We’ve never a Federal one and the ones established by the states were abolished over 160 years ago.
The homes, therefore, are linked to the judicial system.

It would seem to be that, in the strict sense of the idea, this is a violation of Church and State, right?
Click to expand...
No. Firstly, “separation of church and state” is not statuary law. Nobody knows what it means until a lawsuit is filed and courts rule. Secondly, I’m sure this isn’t mandatory. The judge undoubtedly has alternatives for those who do not wish to participate. Thirdly there is a question if such classes are an establishment of religion.“Linkage” is not establshing a state religion. Finally, states are free to establish religions if they wish (I would not want to fight this one as the incorporation doctrine which imposes the 14th amendment on the states is so well established. However, it is usually applied the reverse of its intent).
 
The spiritual status of the leaders of our country affects the future of our country. As such that persons religious leader should have access to them in order to ensure that they are living up to their spiritual ideal.

(Of course I realize that ideals can be wildly divergent but hey, this situation ever happeningis more of a fantasy than anything anyway…)
 
Separation of Church and state is an error.
Click to expand...
👍

Exactly, the idea of separation of Church and State in modern usage is an error, the temporal powers have a duty to uphold the Truth in Catholic teaching. Of course, the American gov’t doesn’t do this (and neither have the powerful Catholic States of old always) and thus it is better to have gov’t and religion “separated” in order to prevent the gov’t forcing heresy to be believed.

However, I believe in the seperation of the State from the various protestant sects, atheists, deists, agnostics, pagans etc. The American gov’t does push an agnostic, anti-religious belief-that needs to be stamped out.
 
Ann Cheryl:
IMHO the constitution does not support separation of church and state and in fact this actually is the opposite of what the constitution does say. I believe we are heading for the establishment of a state religion of humanism. There are those who do not want freedom OF religion but freedom From religion.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that could have been stated any better…

SG
 
Hello All,

We need to look at the Constitution very carefully:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Congress, i.e. the Government, cannot Establish a religion of any kind. This was included in the Constitution inorder to avoid the British problem of the Church of England. The Pilgrims left Englad specifically to get away from the Church of His Imperial Majesty. Prior to the Revolution, several of the Colonies had an Official Religion. The Episcopal Church was the most Common. In several Colonies the Catholic church was outlawed. “:The Establishment Clause” forbid government intrusion on Matters of Faith.

“… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

This “Free Excercise Clause” allowed Faith to be a matter of personal choice. No one had to belong to or pay tithes to a State Religion. This gave Catholics, Jews, and others the right to live and worship without duress.

The main question is, can the government favor any religion or denomination over another. The Fact is, no. It does violate the first Amendement to show favortism towards any religious group, which in this country would likely be Evangelical Protestantism. Does this mean we can’t teach the Philosophy of religion and ethics? Of Course not. I firmly believe that Philosophy, Etthics, and Logic should be required to graduate from High School. My generation butchering itself out of existence. Kids have no morals or direction. Taking courses in Philosophy will go along way. Also, kids should not be afraid to start religious clubs in their schools. LifeTeen especially, should encourage members to start clubs in the Hedonism that is High School.

It shouldn’t be a seperation of Church and state, but a balance between Church and State. 😃
 
40.png
RikasAngel:
Hello All,

We need to look at the Constitution very carefully:

"
Click to expand...
I wish it was WE who upholds the constitution but it is not. It is the supreme court and their track record is dismal. Just look at their recent ruling on private property.
 
I marked “other” for a variety of reasons. I don’t believe that religion should be controlled by government where it doesn’t hurt any body else’s rights and liberties. I believe that it does have some role to play in government, in that our religious beliefs are often infused into our moral values. And these moral values are what guide us and make us capable of just rule. Every law made is made for a reason, but there are two sides to just about every legal argument. The judgement of which side is right can be done by analyzing fats in some cases, but in others it just comes down to a question of what is right and what is wrong. These judgements are based on our moral values. Ultimately, somebody’s morals will be forced onto society through law- the question becomes “Whose morals?”
Consider, for example, the effects of banning (Christian) religion from virtually every sqphere of public influence: we get the rise of a secular human culture. By the way, the Supreme Court of the United States did in one ruling recognize human secularism as a religion (Torasco v. Watkins, 1961), so allowing it to be in government to the exclusion of other religions does in fact contradict the first ammendment.
Incidentally, prior rulings of the Supreme Court (pre-20th century) gnerally favored that religion could be allowed, fo example, it upheld that reading from the Bible in public schools was practically necessary (1844: Vidal v Girard’s Executers). The case banning prayers in public schools (Engal v. Vitale, 1961) was an overturningof this earlier ruling. And the Northwest Ordinance, by the same congress as passed the first ammendment, established our public schools, saying that the schools were to be established because RELIGION, MORALITY, and education (listed in that order) were absolutely necessary for or just and free society.
Even Thomas Jefferson, with whom the phrase “separation of church and state” orginated, stated numerous times that since the power to establish a religion wasn’t granted to the federal government, it must therefore lie with the states (under the 10th ammendment).
All of this is not necessarily to say that we should be establishing a theocracy in the US (or anywhere else), but rather that it is equally foolish to bannish religion from the sphere of public and government influence for the sake of avoiding this theocracy. This would be analogous to going to the desert for fear of drowning- the result is dying a slow death from dehydration instead.
 
Hi guys!

I’ve often heard the argument that because the phrase “separation of Church and State” does not appear in the Constitution, that is a concept that can easily be dispensed with. This seems to me a ridiculous standard. Freedom of association, freedom to marry, freedom of travel, “innocent until proven guilty,” executive privilege, the right to vote, judicial review, qualifications for judges or justices, and even the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers are all extra-constitutional legal concepts. None of these are thought to be ideas that we can rid ourselves of lightly. I would include the separation of Church and State to be one of these.

This separation can often come to be misunderstood. It does not mean abolishing the mention or the symbols of religion from the public square. Nor does it mean that one’s religious background should not inform the policy decisions that either I or a politician would make.

It may also not forbid government subsidies to certain types of religious programs, but on that I would exercise a prudent caution. Tax dollars that go to support a Catholic School today could just as easily go to an Anton Levay Lyceum tomorrow as the government is pretty explicitly barred from preferring one religion to another.
 
Seperation of Church and state is an illusion at best. I had to mark “other”. Man cannot exist without God. I thought about choosing “abolish it”, but I am not calling for a theocracy. See this blog,

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Another way to look at it.

Catholic Religion = Truth

Government cannot influence Truth, but Truth can influence Governement.
 
I voted “other”.

I am for total separation of the church and Federal Government.

This is exactly what the first amentment calls for. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.

“No law respecting.” Means they can make no law on the subject whatsoever.

They can’t make a law requiring school prayer.
They can’t make a law requiring 10 commandment monuments.

However, also…
They can’t make a law forbidding school prayer.
They can’t make a law forbidding 10 commandment monuments.

All these laws are respecting an establishment of religion and such laws are explicitly forbidden.
 
40.png
Angainor:
I voted “other”.

I am for total separation of the church and Federal Government.

This is exactly what the first amentment calls for. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.

“No law respecting.” Means they can make no law on the subject whatsoever.

They can’t make a law requiring school prayer.
They can’t make a law requiring 10 commandment monuments.

However, also…
They can’t make a law forbidding school prayer.
They can’t make a law forbidding 10 commandment monuments.

All these laws are respecting an establishment of religion and such laws are explicitly forbidden.
Click to expand...
You know it’s pretty obvious to me and to you and probably most of us here. Why does the SCOTUS have such difficulty understanding?

Lisa N
 
Separation should not mean exclusion or removal of. Belief should be parallel to State without any governing force but accepted as institution and regarded with reverence.
 
Lisa N:
You know it’s pretty obvious to me and to you and probably most of us here. Why does the SCOTUS have such difficulty understanding?

Lisa N
Click to expand...
When public, state institutions advocate specific activities that are primarily religious activities–such as the display of faith-specific texts and the encouragement to pray–then the religion and faith that promulgates both text and practice is being respected.

The endorsement of Christian ethical texts (i.e., the Ten Commandments) on government grounds is an implicit endorsement of Christian ethics, cosmology, and cosmogeny.

The endorsement of religious spiritual practice (i.e., prayer) in government policy is an implicit endorsement of faith.

These things are banned, as a way of preserving the neutrality of both the courthouse and the public school. The same would occur if Islamic or Buddhist texts and practices were endorsed.
 
40.png
RikasAngel:
Hello All,

We have to tread carefully on this Line. Remember Catholics: This is a primarily Protestant Nation. There are individuals and groups who want the “Babylonian Cult”, A.K.A. Catholicism, banned from the United States. In fact, Catholicism was banned in some of the original colonies. So let’s not run to embrace promotion of religion.
Click to expand...
So we should prefer a society with absolutely zero recognition of God to a society where God is recognized but a severely tiny minority of confused wants Catholicism banned? This argument only does harm to the public good by weakening the argument that Christianity is a good religion and philosophy for the public.
40.png
RikasAngel:
The fact is, the Constitution clearly states a that the Establishment of Religion is forbiddon. The part the secularists forget is that there is also a Free Excercise Clause in the Constitution. It guarantees the Right of citizens to practice their faith in any way they please. It is not seperation of Church and State, but a balance of Church and State. Schools can’t sponser prayer or teach the ten commandments, but students can pray whenever they want and form bible study groups without any interference. Furthermore, it is licit to have Philosophy and Ethics classes, because they do not favor any perticular religion.
Click to expand...
What possible harm can teaching the 10 commandments do to anyone?
40.png
RikasAngel:
I know this seems heretical to some more Conservative individuals, but it is Constitutional. Also, even if Separation of Church and State were true, it does NOT mean Separation of Church and Culture. We Catholics needs to be Fair and Balanced, unlike FOX News. 😛
Click to expand...
Separation of church and state is absolutely not constitution. The words are not mentioned in the constitution and all history of the country flies in the face of this argument. Scalia’s dissent on the latest 10 commadment case nicely outlines numerous public figures that promoted religion and God while serving a public official capacity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top