Why We Must Have Separation of Church and State

[Yavin4]

This movie, "The Passion of the Christ", has proved one thing beyond all doubt: We must have a full and complete separation of church and state in this country or our republic will fall.

Conflicting religious beliefs can and will tear this, and any other, country apart.

[myopic4141]

1. I thought

Shrubby in office was argument enough for strenghtening the separation.

[drdigi420]

2. reality is enough reason

i dont want to be controlled by other's myths

i shouldnt have to worry about it

[Bridget Burke]

3. Two reasons....

1) The government should not be controlled by any religion.

2) No religion should be controlled by the government (barring actual breaking of the law). This is understood by the many sane, reasonable people of faith. It was once the opinion of the Southern Baptists, in fact.

[terryg11]

4. you sound as if you want one religion or no religion

"conflicting religious beliefs can and will tear this, and any other, country apart."

sounds more like an argument for banning all religious beliefs altoether or setting up one state mandated religion from which none can sway.

[Yavin4]

7. You're Mis-Interpreting My Comment

A free society always have conflicting religious beliefs, and that's why government institutions should never favor one belief over another. I'm calling for government to butt out of religion and vice versa.

[terryg11]

10. sounds nice but will never happen in a free society

too many people hold religion very dear to them and it also greatly influenced their moral views. Many who go into politics do so to suppoort their moral vision of society. They will always get in the doors of government just like this absurd constitutional amendment. Many people are supporting this on (shakey at best) religious grounds but the people in government are being much trickier. They are supporting it on MORAL grounds. I doubt if you will find one quote from W saying he supprts this because of the religious implications, nay, it's done to protect the fabric of society and so on.

so, sorry for misinterpreting your comment, I really just wanted you to clarify.

[Warpy]

11. Hardly

Disagreements on matters of faith only become problematic when wealth and/or power is at stake.

I vehemently disagree with all the organized religions. However, since they cannot claim my wealth in enforced donations, nor use their power to force me to toe their propaganda line, nor attend their religious functions, nor curtail my civil rights according to their restrictions against women, I am perfectly willing to let them all be wrong.

THAT is the difference.

[LearnedHand]

37. Well...

... they can't YET, anyway. But if shrubby* gets his way...

[humble truth]

5. Just say no to theocracy!

I am convinced some GOPers want to turn the U.S. into a full fledged theocracy. There is no other way to explain their actions. How else can you explain that Justice Moore is a hero to some of these people.

[ithacan]

20. www.TheocracyWatch.org

you are absolutely right, HT. Check out this website on the Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party:

http://www.TheocracyWatch.org/

It documents in detail how the Religious Right has taken over the Republican party...

[blondeatlast]

24. Great site--thanks. Duly bookmarked.

[blondeatlast]

23. You are spot-on, friend (fwiw, I'm a UU Christian).

in fact, and they will let nothing but defeat in 2004 get in the way.

Re-election is just the beginning. Then it will be the Supreme Court, the destruction of our public education system, and the class wars.

BUSHCO MUST BE STOPPED.

[YNGW]

6. We do.

Unlike England circa 1776, the Church of England is not the official religion of the USA. If the government were to say "The Catholic Church (or insert favorite religious body here. FYI, Christianity is NOT a religion, it is a religious philosophy.) is the official church of the USA and all citizens must become Catholics", then we'd have church and state being one and the same. As it is, we are all free to choose to be Baptists or Methodists or Lutherans or Catholics or Pentecostal, or Wiccans....etc., or nothing at all.

That's what is meant by separation of church and state.

[radwriter0555]

8. Absolutely. I don't want someone to decide who's god they're going

to invoke on MY rights, laws, or general welfare.

[Brewman_Jax]

9. Just reading some of the posts on the other threads

shows why.

"My religion is better than yours," or "why don't you believe like me," or "religion is for idiots, like you," or "religion is okay, as long as mine is revered and made legal."

About that last line, think about the "moment of silence" law in school my state (GA). What would happen if during that interval someone held a rosary, of a copy of the Koran, or did something that did not follow the majority-held view?

One graphic example: a metro Atlanta teacher was fired for actively not upholding the law.

[Festivito]

12. I prefer different people accept people's differences.

That we allow people to practice their different religion in the same country where we live, and we make no law that establishes a religion as we would establish justice in our country, so that these would BUILD a seperation of church and state. Not that we effect perfect seperation, that we come close to seperation by building seperation.

[Cleita]

13. I've said it before and I will say it again.

Everyone should confine their religion to their church, temple or shrine and their homes. Public places and government properties are not the place for religion. No one has a right to practice their religion in someone elses church, temple, shrine or private homes. No one has a right to pass laws based solely on the codes of their religion like creationism, dress codes, drinking and dancing laws, etc.

If everyone shows respect for each other's civil rights and keeps their religious practices to their congregation, there is no reason that everyone can't get along.

[smirkymonkey]

15. Amen!

:)

[noiretextatique]

18. i just told a friend this exact same thing the other night

she is a devout christian who doesn't understand that her religious beliefs don't give her especial license to dictate the choices other people make. religion SHOULD BE a private matter.
before some brings up MLK again, remember that he was much more than just a preacher...he was a poltical man as well as a spiritual man. and he never advocating turning the US into a christian theocracy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. You can't separate the two

We are what we believe. I am a Christian. I work as a Christian. I am a family man as a Christian and I vote as a Christian.

[blondeatlast]

30. Indeed you can separate them. I do. Do you want the Feds

dictating your worship? In a theocracy, they will, and that is just what Georgie's puppeteers are after.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Not from people

People are made up of component parts. For most of us, religion is a big part.

[Cleita]

33. And what if we lose a war to the Taliban and they

come over here and set up their theocracy, or maybe they just come over here and start converting a lot of people and set up a theocracy. I can guarantee you it won't be Christianity that you are practicing.

I for one do not want Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Pope or anyone else telling me that I am a sinner. I will not tolerate it. I will not tolerate any laws that impose someone elses religious beliefs on me. Your choice is to worship who you wish and I can chose not to.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. You don't understand

Many here expect us to act as if we are not religious people, to vote as such. We can't. It's who we are. Just as many here are atheists. It is who THEY are.

[Cleita]

36. You're confusing your principles and conscience with someone

else telling you what your principles and conscience should be. You can always vote your conscience and if you want to pray on your job you can, individually, just don't push everyone else into it. If there are certain clothes that you like to wear to affirm your religion in public, you should also be free to do so, just don't expect everyone else to. This is what religious freedom and diversity is about.

As an atheist I have a lot of principles and morals that are broader than any Christians. For one thing I believe it's a sin to keep stock animals in confined pens and othe cruel practices that animals are raised in for food. No Christian teaching gives this much thought. Instead they don't want people drinking beer on Sunday or dancing. There are many other principles that I hold that are for the greater good of our earth, but no Christian religion cares very much about these things.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. I am not confusing anything

My principles and conscience are founded in my belief in God. You can't separate that. It impacts everything -- including the laws I support and the politicians I vote for.

As for the certain clothes that I might like to wear to affirm my religion in public, the French would disagree with you.

Christian religion or other religions are entitled to care about what they wish.

[Cleita]

39. Since this isn't France I don't see your point.

I feel bad for those women in France who can't wear their Muslim headress. But here again you can see where separation of Church and State is necessary. This is where the State is interfering with the religious beliefs of a certain religous sect. It would be the same if we told nuns they couldn't wear their habit. For awhile in Mexico that did happen.

However, since I was raised as a Catholic and went to Catholic school I had to wear that hated little blue uniform that announced to the world, I was a Catholic. Back in the fifties, being Catholic or Jewish wasn't approved of by the majority of Christians in town. Street corner evangelists harrangued us at street corners as papist spawn while we waited for the bus to go home.

It got to be a who could insult each other more type of exchange all the time. I have to tell you we papists weren't the intolerant ones in this exchange. The point I am making is that even though our little exchanges attracted the local police, they never interfered as long as it was civil. You see the state knew how to stay out of a disagreement and would have stepped in if either side broke the law.

Later in my life, I had a lab partner in college who wore his yarmulke to class affirming his Jewishness. He was once accosted and beaten up in his gym class just because he was wearing this little cap.

So what I am saying is that one can affirm their relgion without imposing it on others. the state must stay out of it unless there is a breech of law or possibility of injury to the citizens. A religious state would not accomplish this.

[BonjourUSA]

14. In a real secular country...

neither the president nor the witnesses swear on the Bible.... for example.

[Cleita]

17. I go along with that as it seems to be meaningless anyway.

They should sign a contract instead with terms to meet and if they violate the terms of the contract they should have the retribution spelled out. For instance if the President starts an unjust war with lies he should immediately be charged with treason and put on trial.

All this should be spelled out in the contract ahead of time so that each President knows what is expected of him, what isn't allowed and what the consequences will be when he breaks the terms of the contract, or roughly something like this.

Don't flame me because it's a rough idea of how I think we might be able to avoid shit like Bush happening again. Any other ideas?

[BonjourUSA]

21. They couldn't swear on the Constitution ?

A President has to defend the Constitution and his job depends on it more than Bible

[Cleita]

22. True that's what he swears on the bible for to uphold the constitution.

Since this President is using the constitution for toilet paper, I can only assume the Bible swearing is meaningless to him, no matter how religious they try to paint him.

[BonjourUSA]

31. In a secular country the Constitution is over all

And a President would prefer to use the Bible for ass-paper.

An example, if Chirac swore on the Bible or said "God bless France", millions demonstrators would be in the streets !

[blondeatlast]

26. No flames here. As a Christian, I abhor the practice on many levels.

1. No one gives a moment's thought to what or whom they are swearing the oath, nor to what it means. It carries as much emotional weight as my 7yo son's pledging the flag. That is, ZERO.

2. It is hypocrisy taken to its highest level in both the government and in His name:

Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

You can bet Bishop O'Brian (diocese of Phoenix) swore faithfully that he wouldn't lie. But he did, in front of God, his victim's family, and everybody. It made me physically sick. He was convicted, btw.

I cringe when I see an oath sworn on the Bible. It's an excuse for liars and hypocrites, and honest people don't need it in order to be honest.

What a joke, but to a believer in God, the inherent goodness of Man, and justice, there is nothing funny about it.

[knight_of_the_star]

32. I don't think they do that out here

I don't think that you swear on the Bible out here in California. At least you don't in the cases I've seen.

[Malva Zebrina]

16. those who would support a theocracy

do not realize what they are signing on to. A control of their religion by the government.

They think it great that they will get taxpayer money to repair their lofty cathedrals, built without a thought to the economic factors necessary to maintain it and subsequently, as the economy failed, and the middle class person who normally contributed to the upkeep of the giant, stone cathedrals, could no longer do so. It was required to be kept up, heated seven days a week , but was only used an hour every morning and a couple of hours on the weekend or holidays.

And these great cathedrals could not support their own magnificence. The mill towns deteriorated as the mills went out of business, or transferred overseas.

Nor could they support, monetarily, the schools attached to them.


Now, it is quite the thing to have the tax payers support these monstrosities. It does not matter if it violates the separation of church and state constitutional decree--it is more important that these cathedrals, these schools, this religion survive,economy wise, and so will trash the consitution in order to get the welfare money of the government.

This is pathetic actually. They will be in bondage to the government. Is that really the way they want to go? In hock to a government?

From the looks of it, I suppose they do.

[Cleita]

19. People who want theocracies don't know it may not be their

religion that is numero uno. What if a bunch of cultists come along who demand human sacrifice to the gods. What if some of the New Age people get in control? How would the fundie Christians like that? What if the Catholics prevail and we end up all answering to the Vatican? This country was founded by people who were escaping religious persecution, which is why the founding fathers instituted separation of Church and state.

[blondeatlast]

28. Those who are innocently supporting it don't see the danger.

I don't want the Feds in my worship. For that matter, Christ didn't either.

[E-Z Rider]

25. I agree

When you combine government and religion, both the nation and the religion suffer.

[blondeatlast]

29. Well said, and welcome to DU!

:toast: