Separation of religion and politics

[sedonaman]

…I had a supervisor at work tell me that I couldn’t carry my Bible around with me and read it during lunch breaks because, as a government employee, me having a Bible violates the separation of church and state.

I use to be a government supervisor. Ask him if he would treat a Muslim the same way if he [the Muslim] read the Koran under the same circumstances … then watch as he lies to you between his teeth.

You might follow up and ask if he thought a reasonable person who happened to see you with a Bible would see the government “respecting the establishment of religion.” This is the test that the Sixth Circuit court relied on in ACLU vs. Mercer Co., KY. I’d be interested in his response.

 

[AndyCothran]

Separation of church and state is important,
but… what’s our personal experiences in the separation of religion and politics?
Is it possible?

Pag that is an EXCELLENT question .
I think on a private level it is impossible to seperate the two but in community with others i believe it is imperative …It is never easy but i think the answer to your question is a yes and a no …

 

[sedonaman]

…
I think on a private level it is impossible to seperate the two but in community with others i believe it is imperative …

Can you give an example of a situation where it is imperative?

 

[Calgar]

I use to be a government supervisor. Ask him if he would treat a Muslim the same way if he [the Muslim] read the Koran under the same circumstances … then watch as he lies to you between his teeth.

You might follow up and ask if he thought a reasonable person who happened to see you with a Bible would see the government “respecting the establishment of religion.” This is the test that the Sixth Circuit court relied on in ACLU vs. Mercer Co., KY. I’d be interested in his response.

I just called his bluff. I told him if he wanted to take punative or administrative action against me, to do so.

Those types of action require a review, I guess he didn’t want that kind of scrutiny. I’m military so a few months later I had a new supervisor.

 

[AndyCothran]

Can you give an example of a situation where it is imperative?

Certainly . Teaching creationism in public schools is an example ,It is imperative that we not teach creationism as a fact …It is a religious issue and does not belong in the class room …Evolution is also a theory and should be emphasised as such …

 

[GratefulFred]

Kama3,

Thanks for the clarification. I do not intentionally mislead.

FRED

 

[sedonaman]

I just called his bluff. I told him if he wanted to take punative or administrative action against me, to do so.

Those types of action require a review, I guess he didn’t want that kind of scrutiny. I’m military so a few months later I had a new supervisor.

Good for you. If he is a civilian, I can tell you from personal experience that upper management won’t back him unless you’ve committed treason, murder, or some EEO rule violation. They don’t want the heartache either. If he is a military, he’s just looking to hassle you. Why? Because he can. As a former military myself, I also ran into that.

 

[essie7777]

It seems a majority of people in the United States knows that homosexuality is immoral though do they not? Yet, this subject is constantly under attack from all sides and I have seen enough people who are basically pro-choicer’s in the homosexuality cause. “Well I myself believe its wrong, but I don’t want to “push” my religious beliefs on others”. The abortion issue is even more clear about this considering up to 70% will say they personally believe abortion is wrong. There is a sizable chunk of people who are convinced that they would be pushing their religious beliefs on people if they supported ending abortion or continuing to fight against promoting homosexual marriage.

The understanding of “church-state” relation is an important subject.

Absolutely see what you are saying… the point i was trying to make, possibly not clearly, is that there isn’t a separation of Church and State in the sense that faith doesn’t impact on how people vote. The threads all seem to agree that most people vote based on their faith. The issue seems to be purely down to numbers.

There just aren’t enough people following the Catholic Church to see this represented at political polls. Democracy relies on people voting with their feet ( a British phrase -).

Would the debate on separation between Church and State be such a talking point if at the polls 70% of voters on issues covered under Catholic morality were in fact Catholic? I’m not sure it would be. The debate seems to center around as you say, “forcing” one’s faith onto the population, but this seems a bit of a bizarre way of explaining it. Isn’t this point arguable from the other direction that as Catholic we are having secular beliefs forced on us.

When you break it down the as every person votes on their own morality and beliefs, that’s democracy in play. Surely the fact that the laws are so secular based in their perception is simply because secular non Catholic beliefs are held by more people than there are Catholics?

I don’t intend to start a debate on the specific issues i simply am trying to understand why the debate seems to center on the theology behind debating the relationship between Church and State, rather than the practicality of how we can become the majority voice in society? Hope that makes sense.

 

[Dale_M]

I don’t intend to start a debate on the specific issues i simply am trying to understand why the debate seems to center on the theology behind debating the relationship between Church and State, rather than the practicality of how we can become the majority voice in society?

Maybe debating theory is easier than proposing workable solutions?

Yet such practical endeavors does seem to be what Pope Benedict, in his recent address to US bishops, is calling for.

There can be no doubt that a more consistent witness on the part of America’s Catholics to their deepest convictions would make a major contribution to the renewal of society as a whole.

osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?JSPTabContainer.setSelected=JSPTabContainer%2FDetail&last=false=&path=/news/vaticano/2012/016q12-Il-Papa-ai-vescovi-degli-Stati-Uniti–Testi.html&title=Convincing%20witness%20in%20the%20face%20of%20radical%20secularism&locale=en

The New Evangelization, which the pope has often mentioned, requires that we stop compartmentalizing our faith. But how to do so, without pushing people away? I dunno… quiet witness. Live our faith, show our faith, in public. Don’t antagonize, but don’t hide it either.

I think the return of England and Wales to the tradition of meatless Fridays might be an example of such a quiet witness, and an opportunity to gently evangelize.

 

[essie7777]

Maybe debating theory is easier than proposing workable solutions?

Yet such practical endeavors does seem to be what Pope Benedict, in his recent address to US bishops, is calling for.

osservatoreromano.va/portal/dt?JSPTabContainer.setSelected=JSPTabContainer%2FDetail&last=false=&path=/news/vaticano/2012/016q12-Il-Papa-ai-vescovi-degli-Stati-Uniti–Testi.html&title=Convincing%20witness%20in%20the%20face%20of%20radical%20secularism&locale=en

The New Evangelization, which the pope has often mentioned, requires that we stop compartmentalizing our faith. But how to do so, without pushing people away? I dunno… quiet witness. Live our faith, show our faith, in public. Don’t antagonize, but don’t hide it either.

I think the return of England and Wales to the tradition of meatless Fridays might be an example of such a quiet witness, and an opportunity to gently evangelize.

I think the England and Wales action is pretty cool, where i was schooled that was always the rule, and we always had the reason explained so we never just took it as a “they forgot the hamburger day”!

Other religions seem more open to evangelize. As a general consensus as Catholics we just simply don’t have the skills! Or that’s certainly the case here in the US.

Although, i have to say it is comforting to live in a country where people are so publically committed to faith. I’ll admit though when i moved here i was completely baffled by the numerous denominations of churches seen just driving in my own town. I just thought there was CoE or Catholic. Naive i know

Whereas in the UK there just seems to be a complete void of faith within society. It’s so rare for people to openly practice and allow their faith to be seen. I’ve been to mass in the UK with less than 20 people there -and that was in a big city. It’s as if faith has been forgotten. (And i say this as a British person).

In the US the topic is at least something people will talk about, usually to tell you Catholicism is wrong but at least there’s the conversation. My experience in the UK is that the mention of faith is usually met with “really your one of those people” and a swift change of topic to the weather, and the chance of rain!

 

[Nate13]

Absolutely see what you are saying… the point i was trying to make, possibly not clearly, is that there isn’t a separation of Church and State in the sense that faith doesn’t impact on how people vote. The threads all seem to agree that most people vote based on their faith. The issue seems to be purely down to numbers.

There just aren’t enough people following the Catholic Church to see this represented at political polls. Democracy relies on people voting with their feet ( a British phrase -).

Would the debate on separation between Church and State be such a talking point if at the polls 70% of voters on issues covered under Catholic morality were in fact Catholic? I’m not sure it would be. The debate seems to center around as you say, “forcing” one’s faith onto the population, but this seems a bit of a bizarre way of explaining it. Isn’t this point arguable from the other direction that as Catholic we are having secular beliefs forced on us.

When you break it down the as every person votes on their own morality and beliefs, that’s democracy in play. Surely the fact that the laws are so secular based in their perception is simply because secular non Catholic beliefs are held by more people than there are Catholics?

I don’t intend to start a debate on the specific issues i simply am trying to understand why the debate seems to center on the theology behind debating the relationship between Church and State, rather than the practicality of how we can become the majority voice in society? Hope that makes sense.

Haha every time a law is passed someone is unhappy about it. You don’t pass laws without making people mad. Secondly, no one thinks that making abortion illegal is an attempt to push our religion on secularists. We want to save lives. People cry “religious attack!” when they see they are losing the argument. Its like the race card.

 

[essie7777]

Haha every time a law is passed someone is unhappy about it. You don’t pass laws without making people mad. Secondly, no one thinks that making abortion illegal is an attempt to push our religion on secularists. We want to save lives. People cry “religious attack!” when they see they are losing the argument. Its like the race card.

It’s a given that someone will be annoyed at any law, as it may not represent their view. The point i was making though was that separation of Church and state as a discussion is based on theology not practicality.

The reality is that people vote on their own interpretation of morality - this is reflected in the result of what laws are passed. This does not mean that a particular faith has suddenly become part of the state, only that people are voting based on their own beliefs.

As i stated before this isn’t a discussion on specific issues so i won’t comment on the example you gave as there are plenty of threads for these topics.

 

[AndyCothran]

Separation of Church and state is imho a bad thing. Because of it, we’ve murdered 50 million babies and counting since 1973.

Are you forgetting that some of the most horrendous inquisitions and persecutions which invloved torture and murder were done because of the undue influence of religion in governments ?

 

[AndyCothran]

The “separation of church-state” is based on this idea of allowing for the free exercise of religion. Calling it “separation of church-state” is really stupid though, and is something thought up by people who wished to attack religion. Others are correct in saying this does not apply to the States though. It very specifically says Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The States all have their own Constitutions and if they want a state religion they should be allowed to do so. I highly doubt any state wants a state religion in this day and age though considering how widely dispersed people’s views are. A state religion would probably cause more trouble than it was worth.

Nate i think you are leaving the UNITED out of united states …No state has the right to make any law which trumps that made by the Federal Government . The blood of thousands of Union troops testisfy to that truth ,As for those wishing to attack religion …Yes sometimes that is true but it isn’t always …There are those of us that see what happens negatively when Church and state are unduely mixed ,

 

[sedonaman]

Are you forgetting that some of the most horrendous inquisitions and persecutions which invloved torture and murder were done because of the undue influence of religion in governments ?

Oh, by all means, let’s not forget those:

Spanish Inquisition – 350,000

Abortion [only the U.S.] – over 50,000,000, and counting

hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB3.1.GIF

 

[Nate13]

Nate i think you are leaving the UNITED out of united states …No state has the right to make any law which trumps that made by the Federal Government . The blood of thousands of Union troops testisfy to that truth ,As for those wishing to attack religion …Yes sometimes that is true but it isn’t always …There are those of us that see what happens negatively when Church and state are unduely mixed ,

Its pretty specific…its says Congress shall make no law that establishes a state religion. There is nothing about Congress is in charge of pouncing on states that want a state religion. Now we can argue about whether a state religion would be right or not, but lets just be clear about the Constitution actually says. Yes the states are subject to the Federal Government but only when its explicitly stated. The default is the States have the power.

 

[AndyCothran]

Oh, by all means, let’s not forget those:

Spanish Inquisition – 350,000

Abortion [only the U.S.] – over 50,000,000, and counting

hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB3.1.GIF

So you are suggesting that a higher number of those affected is more important than if it were a lesser number …that is illogical and immoral …Every life has the same value . That is what the Catholic church teaches and well as all true Christian Churches .

 

[AndyCothran]

Its pretty specific…its says Congress shall make no law that establishes a state religion. There is nothing about Congress is in charge of pouncing on states that want a state religion. Now we can argue about whether a state religion would be right or not, but lets just be clear about the Constitution actually says. Yes the states are subject to the Federal Government but only when its explicitly stated. The default is the States have the power.

No there is no default here you cannot create a power that is not there . I am going to digress from this because we are in the realm of doing what most fundamentalists do which is interpret to fit our own prespective ,and that is going to lead us nowhere .
You have your opinion i have mine … lets leave it at that alright ?

 

[Dale_M]

Secondly, no one thinks that making abortion illegal is an attempt to push our religion on secularists. We want to save lives. People cry “religious attack!” when they see they are losing the argument. Its like the race card.

Hm?

A central argument in the pro-choice position is that each woman should be free to decide the morality of getting an abortion. Paraphrasing it: if you don’t think abortion is moral, don’t get one. Or, and this is a bit silly but I have heard the chant: “Get your rosaries off my ovaries.”

And, even though the majority of Americans feel abortion is not morally acceptable, the majority of Americans are also opposed to banning abortion.

 

[Dale_M]

Its pretty specific…its says Congress shall make no law that establishes a state religion. There is nothing about Congress is in charge of pouncing on states that want a state religion. Now we can argue about whether a state religion would be right or not, but lets just be clear about the Constitution actually says. Yes the states are subject to the Federal Government but only when its explicitly stated. The default is the States have the power.

However, the US Supreme Court has ruled many times that the Fourteenth Amendment extends the provisions of the Bill of Rights to all of the states. And the Supreme Court has specifically applied that principle to the First Amendment.