Separation of church and state

[sedonaman]

You have never heard any proof that Jefferson, Washington were deists?

Nope. Only claims.

 

[buffalo]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Takes Aim at the Separation of Church and State

…Scalia was quick to say, however, that the distinct roles of church and state do not mean that the one cannot influence the other; in this regard, “our constitutional law has been greatly distorted. … [The notion that] our Constitution forbids anything that favors religion over non-religion is a lie.”

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/supreme-court-justine-antonin-scalia-takes-aim-at-the-separation-of-church?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2012-10-14#ixzz29OucvpIg

%between%

 

[utunumsint]

Exactly! Most people on CAF would be happy to have any State representatives who are Catholic try to incorporate their religious views into their politics, and in fact, insist on it. I guarantee those people would not be so happy about people ‘using their conscience’ and ‘following Church’ laws and rules, if they were of another religion, and doing the same. People in general really don’t value another viewpoint or religion as being as important as they value their own.

I like JPII’s definition of the Secular realm. I’ll post it again here:

Secularity is not secularism! It is nothing other than respect for all beliefs on the part of the State that assures the free exercise of ritual, spiritual, cultural and charitable activities by communities of believers. In a pluralistic society, secularity is a place for communication between the different spiritual traditions and the nation. Church-State relations can and must, on the contrary, lead to a respectful dialogue conveying fruitful experiences and values for the future of a nation.

In this point of view, the state should be in respectful dialog with churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, ashrams, compounds, etc… Obviously you would not want to impose rules that other groups reject, such as wearing a hijab, or not eating pork, and so on. But certainly there is place for religions to be actively involved in tricky legal matters. Especially if said religions are using philosophical and legal arguments for their points of view and are participating in the democratic process.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Greg27]

If you look at the history of religions, when a religion becomes an official religion of the state, persecution of non-official or minority religions often follows. In the past this was a problem for Christian culture, which persecuted Jews and Muslims, and now it is a problem for Christians who live in fundamentalist Islamic cultures, where Muslim extremists pressure the government to place restrictions on Christian practice and evangelism, even to the point of blasphemy laws designed to target Christians, or imposing the death penalty on Christian converts from Islam.

I think religious people have the right to form and act on their conscience as informed by religious values, but the state and church (or religion) should not try to assume the functions of the other. A theocratic government in my view is a form of tyranny which we need to avoid to allow people to be able to choose and act on their beliefs freely. Christianity itself has always taught the act of faith has to be free and faith can never be legitimately forced on anyone, in respect of each person’s dignity and freedom as a creation of God.

 

[utunumsint]

I agree, although I do not think this is a problem unique to Christianity. It has also displayed itself time and again in non religious governments. Replace religion with politics (or totalitarian political views) and you have very much the same problem.

To paraphrase your quote:

If you look at the history of politics, when a political movement becomes an official politics of the state, persecution of non-official or minority political views often follows. In the past this was a problem for secular culture, which persecuted XYZ, and now it is a problem for political movements who live in totalitarian political cultures, where totalitarian extremists pressure the government to place restrictions on other political movements, even to the point of tribunals designed to target other political movements, or imposing the death penalty on converts to sed political movements from the ruling totalitarian party.

I think political people have the right to form and act on their conscience as informed by political values, but the state and political groups should not try become totalitarian. A totalitarian government in my view is a form of tyranny which we need to avoid to allow people to be able to choose and act on their political beliefs freely.

That said, a government cannot be all things to all people. There has to be, at some point, an ascendent political group in every democracy.

God bless,
Ut

 

[scipio_a]

“Separation of Church and state” does not mean the same thing in the US that it does in say France or Spain. Often referred to as “religious liberty” it is more properly called religious tolerance. An entry in the Catholic encyclopedia is of interest here. And although the entry is from 1917 and we have had deterioration in some of these areas, it still applies. The real goal should be to reverse the deterioration

From the Catholic encyclopedia Religious Toleration entry:

As a practical proof of the internal advantages of a separation in principle, it is usual to point to the example of the United States which has extended the blessing of its liberal Constitution in recent years to its newly-acquired colonies of Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands. But, while it may be granted without reserve that both Church and State seem to prosper exceedingly well in their friendly juxtaposition, it would be rash to speak of the situation as ideal. It must, however, be acknowledged that no other land in the world has so honourably maintained the amicable separation of Church and State, while in some European countries the law of separation was unfortunately only a pretext for a more violent attack on the rights of the Church. Not without good reason did Leo XIII in his Brief of 1902, addressed to the American hierarchy, express his approval of a wise and patriotic adaptation to the national and legal conditions of the United States. He could do this with a good conscience, although in his Encyclical “Immortale Dei” of 1 November, 1885, he had declared the harmonious union of the two highest powers the ideal situation, and had referred to concordats as the means of arranging questions bordering on both jurisdictions. If the United States forms the sole honourable exception to the rule, this is due partly to the fact that the State neglects neither the religious factor at large nor Christianity, as is shown by the strict laws concerning Sunday observance, Christian monogamy, and the celebration of Thanksgiving Day. What E. Walter wrote fifty years ago is still true today: “Even in the United States of North America, to which people so readily appeal, religion is not regarded as a matter of indifference to the State, but is presupposed as the State’s complement”

An attempt at a proof is to be found at Liberty Addict.com blog

libertyaddict.com/home/christian-roots-constitution/

Here the entire US Constitution’s Christian roots are demonstrated sufficiently if not comprehensively and the part about the first amendment religion clause is more comprehensive.

 

[utunumsint]

I agree, although I do not think this is a problem unique to Christianity. It has also displayed itself time and again in non religious governments. Replace religion with politics (or totalitarian political views) and you have very much the same problem.

To paraphrase your quote:

If you look at the history of politics, when a political movement becomes an official politics of the state, persecution of non-official or minority political views often follows. In the past this was a problem for secular culture, which persecuted XYZ, and now it is a problem for political movements who live in totalitarian political cultures, where totalitarian extremists pressure the government to place restrictions on other political movements, even to the point of tribunals designed to target other political movements, or imposing the death penalty on converts to sed political movements from the ruling totalitarian party.

I think political people have the right to form and act on their conscience as informed by political values, but the state and political groups should not try become totalitarian. A totalitarian government in my view is a form of tyranny which we need to avoid to allow people to be able to choose and act on their political beliefs freely.

That said, a government cannot be all things to all people. There has to be, at some point, an ascendent political group in every democracy.

God bless,
Ut

Interesting quote here from Wilfred McClay,

The story of the fall of man … could be understood as a powerful expression of God’s love for us, since he loved us enough to permit us the freedom to disobey and reject him. [We toleratre error] because the commitment to noncoercion flows from a theologically grounded commitment to the fundamental and intrinsic dignity of each individual person and to the necessity of letting that person come to God freely, in a disposition of love, in the manner of God’s desiring.

God bless,
Ut