Should we have stronger separation of church and state?

[noonereal]

Find me a country that was better for it's lack of religion.... I'll wait.
[/QUOTEI.
Right back at you, find me one that is better off for it.

I win. Far more suffer because of a tie to religion than benifit.

 

[jmotivator]

@noonereal

"Right back at you, find me one that is better off for it.

I win. Far more suffer because of a tie to religion than benifit."

Translation: "I have nothing at all to support my assertion, so I am right."

I can point you to all of the Communist Horrors of the last 100 years and the tens of millions of dead in the effort for a secular government to abolish religion.

There are countless people in 3rd World countries and poor communities for whom the local churches and religious food pantries and shelters make their lives better rather than worse.

 

[Risky Thicket]

I am all for taking the language out of anything in the government in terms of having “in god we trust” written on things and taking crosses out of school etc. That being said, people should still have the right to religious freedom and I strongly protect that. There needs to be a respect given both ways that I don’t see happening and I find it really concerning.

^^^ I agree.

When I was in school my homeroom was in the biology lab. We sat around huge lab tables. The morning announcements and the morning prayer were presented over the intercom. During the prayer everyone bowed their head and closed their eyes. Sitting across the table from me was the most beautiful girl my 9th grade self had ever seen. She was Jewish, Rena.

During the prayer I took the opportunity to stare a Rena while her head was bowed. Until one day she looked up and caught my stare. I

Stupid me. Why would Rena listen to the morning prayer? Why would Catholics listen? I didn't. I have no idea how many kids in my homeroom were uninterested in the daily protestant prayer. I had never thought about it until I wondered how alienated or even offended Rena might have been. This happened at a time when I decided to become unchurched as soon as my parents allowed it. Later, I decided I that I was nonaffiliated. Nothing for and nothing against.

Forced religious practice in publicly funded schools is wrong on all levels. In today's climate it is easy to see religion in government separates people, the opposite of what most religions say they want.

I'm fine with teachers and staff wearing a religious symbol. Kids are observant. Let the actions of the teachers and staff speak for their faith.

Back to religion, the only area I’m not sure about is with elected officials being stopped from using it for a few reasons. Firstly, either side you line up on, you probably want to know if you are voting for some religious person or not and how would you know if that wasn’t voiced. The reason it’s important to know is because generally someone’s religion is going to affect how they vote on certain topics. Also, it will affect whether a voter sees them as “trustworthy” or if they are “kooky”. The issue of separation of church and state can really only go so far. I’ve heard from some non-religious people that separation of state should even mean that a voter doesn’t think about their religion when they vote but that’s never going to happen for a religious person. To them religion is an intricate part of their life and their vote is going to reflect that no matter what anyone else says they should do. I was raised catholic (not religious now) but I can remember talks given by the priest in church about how what you voted on HAD to be thought of from a moral standpoint first. I know this will probably make people mad but isn’t that technically what we all do? Look at the issues and decide what is morally right in our minds? So for that part I don’t think can be changed no matter what someone wants.

As a Buddhist the 10 Commandments don't offend me. In my experience most Christians don't pay that much attention to them unless they fill the need to justify an action or to exert control. The 10 C should never be permitted in public buildings or government activities.

I assume most judges have religious beliefs of some kind. No problem as long as the remain unbiased. But putting the 10 C in a courtroom is absolutely unnecessary and wrong.

If a place of worship espouses a political position that place of worship should no longer remain tax exempt.

People do not want government controlling their religions. They should not want religion controlling their government.

 

[Rexedgar]

If you combine the Bible, US Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Pledge of Allegiance, you can get $60 for it.



Trump cannot state that the Bible is his favorite book with a straight face!

 

[ColdHardTruth]

A lot good can come from that.

Nope. Keep your religion out of my government. Your religion is not the law and it's not going to be. Accept it and move on.

That’s just your religious beliefs and you have no right to impose them on society

Your religion has no place in a court of law or in a legislative session.

Just stop.

 

[Lisa]

A lot good can come from that.

That’s just your religious beliefs and you have no right to impose them on society

The separation of church and state expressly prevents anyone or any group, from forcing their religious views on any other person or group via the power of the state.

How are your religious beliefs, as defined by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, impacted in any way by the strict separation of church and state as created by the Establishment Clause?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Find me a country that was better for it's lack of religion.... I'll wait.

Every country is better when religion doesn't interfere in government. That was one of the reasons this country was founded.

The talibangelicals need to accept that their religion is not the law. If they cannot, they can leave the country.

 

[jmotivator]

Every country is better when religion doesn't interfere in government. That was one of the reasons this country was founded.

Not really, you have it backwards. The founders didn't want the state running a state church, like the Church of England. Kicking all religious observance out of government is the opposite of the intention.

The talibangelicals need to accept that their religion is not the law. If they cannot, they can leave the country.

LOL. If only you could see the irony....

 

[noonereal]

Translation: "I have nothing at all to support my assertion, so I am right."

If I were you I'd never take a job as a translator.

Childish retort.

 

[jmotivator]

If I were you I'd never take a job as a translator.

Childish retort.

Just pointing out that your attempted defense boiled down to there being no real difference.

Also no, the childishness was you declaring victory after not making an actual argument, and following that up with a nonsensical assertion that you also failed to back up.

 

[noonereal]

Just pointing out that your attempted defense boiled down to there being no real difference.

Also no, the childishness was you declaring victory after not making an actual argument, and following that up with a nonsensical assertion that you also failed to back up.
[Benazir.
I don't even know what you are talking about but what we both know is that throughout history religion has seldom benefited the state. More often than not it has perverted the state as we now have in America.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Not really, you have it backwards. The founders didn't want the state running a state church, like the Church of England. Kicking all religious observance out of government is the opposite of the intention.

No, I do not.

The founders did not want religion interfering in government. The 1st amendment prevents the state from sanctioning a religion. It's meant to prevent religion from interfering in the state.

The founding fathers have commented on this, and they stated that hey US is not, in any way, founded on Christianity.

We were meant to be a secular state.

LOL. If only you could see the irony....

There is no irony really. I am simply saying they can keep their religion to themselves. They can believe what they want but they have no right to force it on the rest of the population.

If they cannot handle that, they are free to move to another country and try an establish a theocracy there.

 

[jmotivator]

@noonereal

I don't even know what you are talking about but what we both know is that throughout history religion has seldom benefited the state. More often than not it has perverted the state as we now have in America.

Freudian slip there. Or would that be Marxian slip?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

@noonereal



Freudian slip there. Or would that be Marxian slip?

The right-wing wouldn't know what Marxist is if one slapped them upside the head.

The right throws that term around whenever somebody doesn't agree with their KKK tactics.

Just stop.

 

[jmotivator]

The right-wing wouldn't know what Marxist is if one slapped them upside the head.

The right throws that term around whenever somebody doesn't agree with their KKK tactics.

Just stop.

LOL. Your projection can be seen from the moon.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

There is nothing in the US Constitution, including the First Amendment that bans religious influence on US goverment. The assumed separation of church and state simply means that the US government cannot establish an official religion or require anyone to follow or practice religion. We cannot become a clerical state either along the lines of the monarchy that we fought a revolutionary war to exit or along the lines of for instance Iran or Saudi Arabia. It does not and should not ban religious displays or influence. While we are not a clerical state, we are also not an atheist state.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

LOL. Your projection can be seen from the moon.

It's not projection when it's truthful. In this case, it is, because anytime the right-wing gets called for something they scream "Marxist".

Denying is not going to change it.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

There is nothing in the US Constitution, including the First Amendment that bans religious influence on US goverment. The assumed separation of church and state simply means that the US government cannot establish an official religion or require anyone to follow or practice religion.

I think you missed this part of my post.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

We cannot become a clerical state either along the lines of the monarchy that we fought a revolutionary war to exit or along the lines of for instance Iran or Saudi Arabia. It does not and should not ban religious displays or influence. While we are not a clerical state, we are also not an atheist state.

Ok. But what should we be? Is it good or bad to have the iconography of a specific religion on things like our money?

 

[Glitch]

Who is requiring that you participate?

The State legislatures in 47 States where they have mandated that the Pledge of Allegiance will be recited. The only three States where the Pledge is not required by law are Vermont, Wyoming, and Hawaii.

Just because the Supreme Court held that mandating the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) does not mean that the States have complied.

 

[Gordy327]

Not really, you have it backwards. The founders didn't want the state running a state church, like the Church of England. Kicking all religious observance out of government is the opposite of the intention.



LOL. If only you could see the irony....

The FF also didn't want religion in government either. Their writings on the matter makes this very clear.

 

[Uriah]

The Constitution puts limits on government, not on religion.

 

[Gordy327]

The Constitution puts limits on government, not on religion.

There are limits to religious freedom. But religion cannot be used to make law or public policy. The government must remain secular.

 

[Lisa]

Not really, you have it backwards. The founders didn't want the state running a state church, like the Church of England. Kicking all religious observance out of government is the opposite of the intention.

This is absolutely wrong. I can quote Jefferson and Madison as proof.

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. [James Madison, 1803?
Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison,

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1803

LOL. If only you could see the irony....

Obviously we cannot all have the equal religious and secular rights to believe or not to belie if the state is support belief over non-belief or supporting one religion or sent over the other.

 

[Uriah]

There are limits to religious freedom. But religion cannot be used to make law or public policy. The government must remain secular.

No one is doing that.

 

[AZRWinger]

The separation of church and state expressly prevents anyone or any group, from forcing their religious views on any other person or group via the power of the state.

Problem is secular Democrats are marching towards any Christian public religious.expression as forcing religious views on others.

How are your religious beliefs, as defined by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, impacted in any way by the strict separation of church and state as created by the Establishment Clause?

Here is the text of the Establishment Clause.

Amendment I​

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Where in the text is the specification for separation of church and state? Nowhere.

If your going to cite SCOTUS declarations creating the so-called wall of separation kindly provide the Constitutional text enabling the SCOTUS to amend the Constitution.