|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Separation of Church and State
  |
| read 11 reaction(s) |
|---|
@ 26-10-2004 22:48 HotSauce110 | 354 posts
| What ever happened to separation of church and state? What does that even mean anyway? Religion is such a huge part of politics now, and people are voting for candidates just because of one or two of their religious beliefs. They figure if someone else is elected all the moral structure of this country will automatically be abolished? I don't see why the government should have anything to do with religion, it is a purely the individual's choice what they do and what they believe, and it's not up to anyone else, including the government, to judge that. If it's not directly hurting anyone else, it shouldn't be a factor, right? |
| Showing posts 1-11 of 11 | Page 1 of 1 |
| Discussion |
|---|
 0  @ 26-10-2004 22:51 danastasia | 19,286 posts
| To me, religion seems to be a trump card for politicians. If they think that by using it they can get people in their favour, they will.
Whilst there are some, I doubt there are many "religious" politicians who would follow the religion if it were to be at their disadvantage. | | 0 @ 01-11-2004 05:45 me_freake | 277 posts
| Well, when you think about it, religion is such a huge part of our society that it is really impossible to have it completely seperate from state without actually banning religion all together. And even then it wouldn't be seperated because in order to ban something you have to make a concious effort to enforce the ban or say that it doesn't exist in the first place. (In fact, it would take more of en effort to deny its existance then to just let people pratice).
Ir religion and state were truely seperated then the people in power that make the laws would not be religious, nor would they be atheist. They would simply have to have no thought one way or the other about religion.
As it is, I think that the whole idea of seperating church and state is ludicrus. Our beliefs should be celebrated. Our children should LEARN religion in school. Not just Christianity. But all world religions. Even if it were just the basic tenets of the major ones. If we are taught about other people's differences (in a positive way) then maybe we would actually be able to accept them as we get older. Rather then to have this idea of "i'm right and you're wrong and that's all there is too it".
I do understand that there are people that are offended by religion being in school and all those things. And I do understand that they would want the right to not have to feel as if someone's spiritual beliefs are being shoved at them. But in the way that our governements have attempted to protect those rights they have started taking away the rights of the people that do choose to believe and practice. By making it illegal to pray in school (no matter who or what you are praying too) or in public and in the work place then you are telling us that there is something wrong with being a Christian. Or a Jew, or Muslim or whatever it is that you are defined as by your religion. It is saying that someone that choose to worship must do so in private, without letting the world know who you are. WHAT you are.
Surely there must be a way to make sure EVERYONE"S rights are being protected.
I know.... I got off subject a bit. But my fingers have a mind of their own and type what they want.
~melissa  | | 0 @ 28-02-2006 22:59 atreyu_is_god | 182 posts
| i think religion should get out of the political scene. nobody wants some christian running a country, cuz hes prolly the popes bitch. religion is on its way out the door anyway, so y is it still so prominent in politics? | | 0 @ 10-03-2006 06:15 FooFightersRule | 309 posts
| Well, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think that "separation of church and state" is found anywhere in the constitution. I believe it says, "the government shall not respect the establishment of religion." or something like that.
Meaning that the country shall not be considered a "Christian nation" or an "Islamic nation" etc...
so that there is no discrimination and the people of this country will be free to worship what they please. As long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights.
This doesn't mean that people who run the country can't be religious. Nor does it mean that our leaders have to hide their beliefs. | | 0 @ 10-03-2006 06:42 vandy | 
9,518 posts
| Here's the thing: separation of church and state doesn't mean that people's personal views come into play when making legislation. What it means is that the church entities themselves don't have any say in what goes on except through what legislation their members pass. It goes the other way around, too, governments can't touch churches (or mosques, or temples, or priories, or any places of worship).
When there are issues that come up that involve peoples' personal faiths, how do you EXPECT them to vote? I mean, if they are morally against something, and that value ties to their religion, they have every right to vote it down. | | 0 @ 10-03-2006 07:13 nefariouslady_t | 11,509 posts
| You have to look at the situations that caused the part of the Constitution of Seperation of Church and State to be writen.
I'm rusty on my history but here is my best...
At the time the writers had came over to America because they were not allowed to worship how they felt they should and in a way they were escaping.
In the past, countries religious heads sometimes had more sway than the political heads of the country.
Countries could have an offical religion and all citizens had to follow it.
So it was writen to insure ppl could worship as they choose and not be ordered to have to follow one government set religion or that the government couldn't tell a church what to teach.
Fact is no matter how you believe, the original meaning has been twisted to fit political agendas. It wasn't meant to force the two totally apart but to make sure that one could never control the other.
hehe... And that from one of the mostly liberal ppl on the site... I could lose my right to call myself that for saying that =P | | 0 @ 10-03-2006 07:40 vandy |
9,518 posts
| about your comment about being liberal Tiff:
I don't think the view you posted was anti-liberal at all. An idea that I've mainly heard from people who identify as liberal is "I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend, to my death, your right to have it." (or something along those lines.) I'd think that for someone who identifies as a liberal, the last thing they'd want would be to squelch someone else's opinion, just because their religion influenced it.
(sidenote: I neither identify completely with the liberal nor conservative side of things. I think there are some atrocious views in both. Although my opinions on most issues tend to be rather polarized, if you add them all together I end up somewhere in the middle.) | | 0 @ 10-03-2006 07:56 nefariouslady_t | 11,509 posts
| haha yeah, I know that quote. Cos I am alot like that. Oh, lordy you should hear the debates me and my dad got in to at election time. My mom banned us from political conversations cos they would go on and on (we are both always right personalities.) I thought he was wrong but thought he had every right to state his opinion because that was the reason that I could aswell.
I voted for ppl in 3 parties last election. So I do have a good balance and dont want to be a die hard party person who is blind because they won't chance to think. I dont think there is any side that has it all right. | | 0 @ 29-04-2006 17:18 Mosh4Jesus | 77 posts
| Okay here's the thing guys. Our Nation has gotten so paranoid about "offending people" that the original intention of the idea. Seperation of church and state was originally intended for the exact opposite purpose; it was to stop the government from interfering with religious installations. But, our government believes that any sort of mention of any religious sort will offend so many people that our world will collapse into pandemonium and anarchy....
So, bear in mind, things get ''lost in translation'' so to speak. | | 0 @ 02-05-2006 15:45 vandy |
9,518 posts
| "separation of church and state" was nowhere in the constitution. The first amendment states that the state shall establish no religion, which means that the government can't choose what religion people belong to. | | 0 @ 30-05-2006 06:52 AlmightyShmun | 1,189 posts
| Ahem. In 1947, Justice Hugo Black, writing for the Court majority, gave the following definition of this wall-of-separation doctrine(the No Establishment Clause):
"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church, or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State."
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has set forth a three-part Lemon Test for determining the religious constitutionality of a law. In order to refrain from conflict with the First Amendment, the law:
1) Must have a secular purpose.
2) As its primary effect, must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
3) Must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Finally, in 1962, the case of Engle v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that even voluntary prayer in public schools was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of Church and State under the First Amendment. |
| |
|
|
|
TOP ARTISTS:
Jonas Brothers, Rihanna, Coldplay, Miley Cyrus, Jason Mraz, Katy Perry, Lil Wayne, Leona Lewis, Avril Lavigne, Pussycat Dolls, The, Chris Brown, Paramore, Taylor Swift, Linkin Park, Secondhand Serenade, Jordin Sparks, Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, Akon, Eminem, Ne-Yo, Abba, Lifehouse, Lars Winnerbäck, Nickelback, Lady Gaga, Evanescence, Colbie Caillat, Takida, M.I.A., Carrie Underwood, Christina Aguilera, Kanye West, Simple Plan, Avenged Sevenfold, Metro Station, Celine Dion, Slipknot, Håkan Hellström, Boys Like Girls, Usher, Kelly Clarkson, Blink-182, John Mayer, Alanis Morissette, Beatles, The, Metallica, Jesse McCartney, Aerosmith, Alicia Keys |
| Copyright © 1998-2008 LetsSingIt | add to bookmarks | disclaimer | privacy policy | advertise on this site |
|
|
