Someone1111:
I agree that most people would assume that the meaning of seperation of church and state is government that does not have an established state church as England does or have treaties allowing the government to appoint bishops (as France and Spain once did). In fact you are correct that is what the Founding Fathers wished to accomplish with the first amendment. However, the concept of seperation of church and state put forth by those who advocate for it is one that prohibits nativity scenes on public laws, praying before football games, offering an invocation at the opening of Congress, including God in oaths, mentioning God in the pledge of allegance, and on money.
In this world of euphemisms, one must becareful what words they stand behind.
England does not have a “State Church”, yes, the Monarch is the head of the Church, but it is not the Church of the State - That title was removed circa 1880. Which, inevitably, sparked off fears amongst Protestants, who then decided to oppose Irish Home Rule, rather than support it. (I.e. The Catholic Church and the Anglican Church of England were on equal footing, both recieved nothing from the state, except funding for religious schools.) As mentioned before, these same laws, which were anti-Catholic, were also anti-Methodist, Presbyterian etc… Which forced these (somewhat of extremists - Not all moved, especially not the ones which were used in the Ulster Plantation) to America.
Christianity has a history of intolerance.
What Human Being is not? I see mostly intolerance coming from Social Liberal, Socialist and Social Democratic “Tolerance” - Intolerance against the religious.
what would you do about all the non-Christians? Would Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. have to attend Mass every week and eventually convert to Catholicism in order to remain in the USA? Would the same go for non-Catholics?
There’s the thing. If the religion were in control - Nothing would most likely be done. But when you get a government, for example the British Government (Let’s say, Conservative, they were extremely racist at this point in time) around 1860s, USING religion for their OWN political wants and needs. “We don’t want those opposing the Crown; the Crown’s Protestant, therefore, all non Protestants should be discriminated against.” - The religion itself, certainly, would not think that way.
Again, all of you seem to focus on the extreme, that’s all I see on these forums. Extreme this, extreme that. The usual cliché of American Conservatives and Liberals, there has only been one case in which I was surprised in relation to this. But back on the point, why must you think of the extreme? Look at Ireland. Back twenty or so years ago, there was a stronger Church-State Relationship (It’s still there, just not the same as it was, we probably have the strongest, bar the Vatican itself, Church-State relationship in the Developed World). At its height, the Church just had a say in politics, if a politician went against the Church (E.g. The proposal of the “Mother and Child” health scheme, the Church viewed this as breaking up of the family - The Health Minister shortly resigned), if the government wanted to pass a law, they would first consult the representitive of the Church - Is this suitable? Yes, or no? Though, yes, it did have its disadvantages, one would be the State overlooked the bad things the Church may have done: Industrial Schools - Not much wrong with them, except they had the odd crazy Priest, who may have physically or sexually assaulted several students. (But at present, you would have no trouble with that - The last case of that was in the eighties. Those schools also closed down in the seventies.)
The benifits do outweigh the problems and consequences, especially seen as the worst of the latter no longer occur.
