Seperation of Church and State(serious discussion)

**Mr. Pickles** · May 2nd, 2002, 10:19 AM

Let's try to keep this civil because I really want to discuss this.

Gollo asked me to find where in the Consitution it specificly stated Seperation of Church and State. So, I looked.

It does not explictly mention the seperation in both directions.

However, a loose constructionalist would use the 1st amendment which states that States cannot endorse/influence Religions(paraphrased), to logicly imply that Religion cannot, in turn, influence the State(meaning all government). Wasn't this an issue when Kennedy was elected? Wasn't there fear that his Catholic background would influence policy?

As an example: this would be similar to the opponents of gun control stating that the right to bear arms allows them to have an AK-47.

My thought was that religious extremists do, in fact, influence policy. Hence the National Day of Prayer becoming a "Christian" holiday. As opposed to a non-demoninational expression of your faith to divinely bolster your nation.

**Gollo** · May 2nd, 2002, 10:49 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Capt. O:

...to logicly imply that Religion cannot, in turn, influence the State(meaning all government). <hr /></blockquote>But it doesn't....

**RIOT** · May 2nd, 2002, 10:53 AM

<a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/menu-ag1.html" target="_blank">Here</a> are some answers to various Church/State questions from the Christian point of view.

**Mr. Pickles** · May 2nd, 2002, 11:01 AM

Though not extensively researched(personally speaking), here is an opposing view point.

<a href="http://www.au.org/" target="_blank">http://www.au.org/</a>

**Mr. Pickles** · May 2nd, 2002, 11:11 AM

Aside from the legality/precedence issue of the seperation of church and state, do you think there should be a distinction?

Should one influence the other?

My belief is that they should not. The running of a nation/state should not be motivated/influence by religious doctrine. As there are left and right wing political party members, I would say that the distance between left and right wing religious parties is even greater.

Neither is needed to promote the other. Each has a seperate agenda. One is to run a government of a multitude of people of various backgrounds. The other is based on a belief structure around a diety which a certain group of people endorse.

**Drone2903** · May 2nd, 2002, 11:30 AM

As I see it, religions ( of any denomination ) are some amongst many to lobby any gov.
Their influence is that of a lobby group, no less no more. So what is your point exactly ?
NRA is a valid lobby ( everybody should carry an AK-47)
but churches ( try to live in peace, not in pieces ) are not ?

**spinning** · May 2nd, 2002, 11:39 AM

Ok food for thought.

The whole separation of church and state topic is totally blown out of proportion. However, here are some random reasons I came up, for why we shouldn't have religion influencing the government.

1. Isreal vs. Palestine conflict
2. The French Inquisition - witch hunts and fear of other religions
3. Hitler - genicide of Jews

Just my $.02

**Draggar** · May 2nd, 2002, 11:59 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by spinning:
Ok food for thought.

The whole separation of church and state topic is totally blown out of proportion. However, here are some random reasons I came up, for why we shouldn't have religion influencing the government.

1. Isreal vs. Palestine conflict
2. The French Inquisition - witch hunts and fear of other religions
3. Hitler - genicide of Jews

Just my $.02<hr /></blockquote>4) The crusades during medieval times

**Cleetus** · May 2nd, 2002, 12:20 PM

No one ever suspects the Inquisition.
Of course, just to be Devil's Advocate...Communism - the one government that almost completely bans religion

**ChipCreep** · May 2nd, 2002, 12:59 PM

Without being too lengthy, a little historical context might shed some light on the intent of the 1st Amendment:

In England, I believe in the late 16th century, King Henry VIII rebelled against the pope, who denied his request for a divorce from his current wife. Henry withdrew England from obedience to Rome, and created, then established the Church of England as the OFFICIAL church of the state. Later, the Pilgrims and Puritans left England for the New World to escape persecution and the requirement to be obedient to the state established church.

I believe strongly that this is the reason the founding fathers placed the clause in the first amendment forbidding the state to "establish" a state sponsored religion like the Church of England (which I believe is still considered the "state" church in England).

Hope this adds something constructive.

**silencio** · May 2nd, 2002, 12:59 PM

Here's one reason to keep religion and govornment seperated, govornment should be based on reason. Religion is simply not reasonable. Why? One mans religion is another mans cult. You can debated that until the universe collapses but since it's based on faith and not empiracle evidence it is subjective.

No-one ever says (except kooks) "I believe the apple is going to fall upward this time."

**silencio** · May 2nd, 2002, 01:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ChipCreep:
In England, I believe in the late 16th century, King Henry VIII rebelled against the pope, who denied his request for a divorce from his current wife. Henry withdrew England from obedience to Rome, and created, then established the Church of England as the OFFICIAL church of the state.<hr /></blockquote>Good call. ..And Constantine all of a sudden said that Christianity was the religion of the Romans. History is riddled with facts like this that no-one ever bothers to consider until it's too late. Gun control is another. Every government in history took away guns from the people before it became a dictatorship.

**Kymera** · May 2nd, 2002, 01:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iateyourcat:
 Every government in history took away guns from the people before it became a dictatorship.<hr /></blockquote>That's right, but you can still "hunt" with land mines. It's almost the same as pumping 100 rounds a second into the forest after a deer.

**+Daemon+** · May 2nd, 2002, 01:27 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kymera:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iateyourcat:
 Every government in history took away guns from the people before it became a dictatorship.<hr /></blockquote>That's right, but you can still "hunt" with land mines. It's almost the same as pumping 100 rounds a second into the forest after a deer.<hr /></blockquote>eh true, but us men need at least 1 pound of c4

**silencio** · May 2nd, 2002, 02:08 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kymera:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iateyourcat:
 Every government in history took away guns from the people before it became a dictatorship.<hr /></blockquote>That's right, but you can still "hunt" with land mines. It's almost the same as pumping 100 rounds a second into the forest after a deer.<hr /></blockquote>That's my point exactly. You think that in order to own a gun that I should have to verify it by saying I'm a hunter. That's not the way I look at it. I read the 2nd amendment as "it is my right to own a gun (arms) so that I don't become a servant of the oppressive government." I own a handgun because I will use it to defend myself against someone who would take my life. That's my right and if someone in the government goes mad tomorrow and starts executing people because they have brown hair then I'll use my gun against the government.

Granted, now that we have weapons of mass descruction I understand the rationality behind keeping some arms away from some people. Unfortunatly, some people see this as their door to complete disamament. And that doesn't work. Just look at England's gun laws. Being that there's a number of English here on the forum, can one of you offer any insight? I don't care if you agree with me but I would like to know you're thoughts.

I'll tell you what I do like the idea of, public cameras. If every person who ever smoked pot was put in jail because they were caught on camera, they would vote (if they didn't forget (hehe)) and the laws against drugs would change. This brings up another question of whether or not an actual complete democracy would work given the intelligence and responsibiliy of the average human but it sure would be interesting to watch for awhile

Thread: Seperation of Church and State(serious discussion)

Thread Tools

Display

Seperation of Church and State(serious discussion)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions