What happened to separation between Church and State? (revolution, school, examples)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think Belief in God is a necessity for much of society (not all!)
I was baptized, and confirmed Catholic, but I don't impose my beliefs on any body who is Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or Scientologist.
However, in this country, the country that was formed in response to people fleeing England for religious freedom, why are we trying to impose specific religious standards of life on the rest of the country?
What happened to the separation of Church and State?
I, too, would like some specific examples of what you have in mind.
The Founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to purge the nation from the influence of religion. On the contrary, many of them felt the recognition of a Higher Power was important in shaping the moral standards of the nation. In fact, they argued that the Church needed to be protected from the State but not necessarily vice versa. They were determined to avoid a state-sponsored sect.
This is whats up. My beliefs may be the same to yours or something else thats not. The law has changed and changed all kinds of ways. the ten commandments were twiced removed!!! thats whats messed up!!! theres nothing wrong with believin in God. i hate religion and love God. God is a revelation NOT a church or religion. when it comes to it im non donomination even though i go to a baptist church. but to answer the question of church and state. the answer is in the past but as a nation there needs to be peace not war and better laws!!! to answer this more and more i could go on for days...
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you. Are you for or against the removal of the ten commandments?
I think separation of Church and State is necessary to protect religious freedom. Not having the ten commandments in public buildings does not infringe on one's ability to follow or believe in them.
In my view, the ten commandments are Judeo-Christian - that's religion. Having them in public or government buildings can be seen as an endorsement of a specific religion unless you have all religions represented, OR you can remove them and have no religions represented. Imagine the uproar if courthouses displayed Buddha or Ganesh or the Koran only. Its easier to simply remove the ten commandments than to represent every religion. Besides, how does one represent those who don't believe in any religion?
I think a little history lesson is needed. When I use the term "The State", I mean whatever governing body was in charge of the town/city/village.
At the time of the Revolution, it was not uncommon for the tax collector in certain areas, to assess and collect taxes for the township AND then, because the Church of England was the predominate church in those areas, also the tithe (10%) for the church. The citizens had to pay regardless of their own personal beliefs. The money went first to the State and then from the State to the Church.
Thus, the State was well involved in financing the church in that the church was not dependent on it's members for survival. The Tithe was collected from everyone.
This effectively "established" a certain religious belief as an official undertaking of the State and supported by the State.
That puts a little different light on what our founding fathers had in mind. It wasn't to banish religious belief. It was to prevent a state supported way of worship.
One very specific example is states passing constitutional amendments (and some people trying to get an amendment to the constitution of the US) defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That is a religious based law aimed at discriminating against gay and lesbians. It stinks of the old laws in the 1800s and early 1900s preventing people of different races from marrying.
Another example is the push (successfully, again, in some states) to teach creationism in schools.
What ever happened to "live and let live" or better yet, what all of the bible thumpers like to say "Judge not, lest ye be judged," (while they go around telling the gays that they're going to hell).
One very specific example is states passing constitutional amendments (and some people trying to get an amendment to the constitution of the US) defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That is a religious based law aimed at discriminating against gay and lesbians. It stinks of the old laws in the 1800s and early 1900s preventing people of different races from marrying.
Another example is the push (successfully, again, in some states) to teach creationism in schools.
What ever happened to "live and let live" or better yet, what all of the bible thumpers like to say "Judge not, lest ye be judged," (while they go around telling the gays that they're going to hell).
To some of the folks suggesting these amendments, they believe the more liberal wing is the group violating the notion of separation by promoting the agenda of a "secular humanist" religion above their own, with a 'state religion' of tolerance and acceptance.
The effort to create the distinction between what is a religious perspective and what is not can be lost on those who are primarily hearing "we are going against your church's teachings."
Similarly, as a poster above noted, if one does not conceive of GOD as being a part of religion, but just BEING, then how can you exclude him from any part of life?! To then declare to that poster that God is not an explicit part of education is tantamount to teaching that God does not exist, even though that is neither the active practice or the intent.
"You're forcing your disbelief in God on us!" is the common declaration.
The irony of then saying to them "When was the last time the class held a non-prayer service?" seldom has a useful impact, I fear.
Similarly, the marriage amendments present a specific view of marriage that ignores the history of marriage as first a civil process for determining ownership issues, before there was Christianity, let alone a Christian definition of marriage.
Because the religious aspect of marriage exists, to then permit some other sorts of marriages feels like a slap in their faces - a repudiation of their religion, a placing of other beliefs above theirs.
I can't actually claim it is not placing another belief above and before theirs, as it is.
At the heart of the constitution is the belief that the State does not accept any religious definitions of governmental institutions and practices as having primacy over others' definitions or no religious definitions at all.
A very hot topic, and one that I have thought about quite a bit. In my (humble) opinion, it is the "fundamentalist" of each and every sect and religion, that believe they are "Correct" in their views, and all others are doomed to eternal hell. . . . this phenomena seems to exist in all "religions", and the Governmental system of the U.S. has, over the past 30 years or so, "caved in", to a fundamentalist christian perspective in a way that makes it impossible for those who do not subscribe to Christian theology to hold major office in this country. This was NOT the intention of the founding fathers, far from it, and although the question of a "God", in one form or another may have been accepted by the founding fathers, I do not believe that they universally believed that "God" was a supreme diety in the sky who judges all, and in the harshest of ways. . . .
There is some truth, however in the theory that every "chain" is as strong as it's "weakest link". . . we have "dumbed down" the political debate on most issues to the point of making decisions on 5 second "feel good" / "feel bad" appeals. . . . one cannot help but wonder if (collectively) we do not deserve what we get. My hope for the current political "silly season" is that saner and more rational priciples will apply. . . . .
One very specific example is states passing constitutional amendments (and some people trying to get an amendment to the constitution of the US) defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That is a religious based law aimed at discriminating against gay and lesbians. It stinks of the old laws in the 1800s and early 1900s preventing people of different races from marrying.
Another example is the push (successfully, again, in some states) to teach creationism in schools.
What ever happened to "live and let live" or better yet, what all of the bible thumpers like to say "Judge not, lest ye be judged," (while they go around telling the gays that they're going to hell).
I agree on creationism being a religious doctrine, but marriage is not. You can get married at a court house. I'm not saying that gays should be discriminated against, only that marriage is not strickly a religious entity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
