Tell me your reasons: Why must Church and State be separate

from JoeUser Forums
First, some ground rules - a quick reminder to treat others and their opinions that might be expressed here-in with respect. Attack the positions if you wish, but do so without attacking the individuals.

Second, some of this may be already covered ground, if you wish to refer to comments in other threads and posts, please feel free to link appropriately and/or reference your comments from those places. If possible, please cut and paste in appropriate comments so lazy folks like me can try to see the discussion in one place, but if you prefer to do it another way that still works for the discussion, feel free.

That should about cover the simple rules. Now for a little background.

Lately there's been a string of discussions about Church and State separation issues, with many comments and justifications on why it exists, and "proofs" that it should exist, etc.

I'd like to consolidate some of that info into one thread where people that support and/or demand separation can provide their reasoning for such regardless of whether they are religious or non-religious.

I'd also ask that people that are staking out an anti-religious symbols / discussion in schools and other state organization and even those like myself that claim to be more tolerant of church and religious symbols / issues in schools to take a few minutes and explain why they may be fervently in favor of their side.

Finally, I'd ask if possible for some further discussion on whether or not you consider yourself a religious or faithfilled person or do you consider yourself a non-believer in religion (or organized religion) and why you consider yourself such.

I'll hold back my own comments more for later, but am interested in where some others stand, and really am more interested in why they stand where they do on these issues.
politics
15,400 views 53 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why? Because the United States Government is a representative republic, and should the government sanction the practices of one religion over others (and over those who have no religion), it defeats the idea of a government that represents ALL the people living under it. In recent years, the ideas have been divided -- should there be no religious displays by government, or should government try and cater to each an every religion? Do you want a Wiccan display next to your manger scene? Easier to just let religion stay in the church/syagogue/mosque/etc. and let government go on and do the business of running the country.

You have the right to go to any sort of church, or none at all in this country. That's not enough for you? You need the government in the religion business, too? That's a theocracy, my friend, and I suggest you read your history about how life generally has gone in theocracies. Nobody's gonna tell you where to go to church, or even that you have to. That should be enough for anyone.

P.S. Why should people of another religion be forced to sit through Christian prayers at public school board meetings, ballgames, graduations, or other "public" (read: government funded) events? Do you want to sit through somebody chanting the Diamond Sutra or reciting passages from the Qu'ran? For that matter, do you want me, as an atheist, to read you passages from Nietzsche to open up a ball game? I don't think so. It's just a matter of having a bit of respect for people who don't do it like you do. Why do Christians have such a hard time with this concept?
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
So, that being said, the "seperation of church and state" can only mean that the government can't recognize one religion over any others.


I really wish that was how things were currently. I agree wholeheartedly in those words, but somehow we have views like Myrr's that organizations like the Scouts, or A.A. must scrap their religious beliefs or acknowledgements in order to use public facilities because -- and this part I really don't understand -- not doing so and continuing to be allowed to use public facilities would mean that the government is somehow sanctioning or favoring one religion over another.

While the Scouts and A.A. have religious beliefs, they tend to be theocratic and not of any particular faith. They acknowledge a god or higher power, but they don't say it's the god of Joseph or Moses, or that it's Buddha or Muhammad, or Allah or whomever.

But, that thin tie to a set of religious beliefs so frightens some people that they must absolutely and posiively ban and bar these organizations from use of public buildings, from receipt of public funds no matter the end goal or result, that it's literally tearing this country apart upon these lines.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
the reason for separation of church in state is that in order to have a true freedom of religion, there cannot be an official religion of the state. Additionally, to have our government involved in projects that favors one religion over another tells those left out they are not wanted or they are different. It sets them up for ridicule for being different.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
For that matter, do you want me, as an atheist, to read you passages from Nietzsche to open up a ball game? I don't think so. It's just a matter of having a bit of respect for people who don't do it like you do. Why do Christians have such a hard time with this concept?


Well, I can very easily respond by asking why you automatically assume that I'd have a problem with any recitation you may wish to use?

You assume that I wouldn't be pleased to hear say a poem by Maya Angelou (sp?) (or that I would be pleased to do so) or Robert Frost, or any other great literary figure, or you assume that I wouldn't be pleased to do so.

Why are you entitled to make that assumption, and why should I not have a hard time with that concept?


Personally, I've said before that I'm mostly a middle of the road person. I don't want the government sanctioning religion, but at the same time, I argue that letting the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts use public school falicities, or letting Optimist Clubs or other civic organizations use those facilities does not mean that the government sanctions those bodies or support them in any way. Just because a group uses a facility doesn't mean that the facility is officially tied to the oganization, and doesn't mean that the facility supports any position that the organization may have.

This is where I have the most difficulty. If an organization that does great work, for example Alcoholics Anonymous, and great public service happens to need a meeting place should they be barred from using publicly financed facilities just because they are based on a set of religious beliefs?
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #7 By: Citizen whoman69 - 1/3/2005 1:25:44 PM
the reason for separation of church in state is that in order to have a true freedom of religion, there cannot be an official religion of the state. Additionally, to have our government involved in projects that favors one religion over another tells those left out they are not wanted or they are different. It sets them up for ridicule for being different.


Then please tell me again how the Scouts, or A.A. being able to use any public facilities (and a big nod and /insightful to ParaTed2k on his comments directly above) shows that the government favors one religion over another?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yup. They should. Lose the religion if you want public money. Islamic taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for Christian programs, vice versa, et cetera, whatever.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Seperation of church and state is important, but an understanding of the spirit of the 1st amendment to the US Constitution matters even more.

I have heard the "seperation clause" explained to mean everything from the government of the US cannot recognize any religious group as "The Official Religion"; to the idea that religious people (in an effort to show respect for the US Consitution) should recuse themselves from all policital activity (including voting).

To me, since the U.S. Constitution is a letter from "We, the People" to the federal government (and not the other way around), it cannot be interpreted to restrict "We, The People" in any way. It is an acknowledgement from "We, the People" that, for a nation to work, we grant the government certain authorities, then goes on to state what those authorities are, and how far we are willing to let the government use them in carrying out their responsibilities.

So, that being said, the "seperation of church and state" can only mean that the government can't recognize one religion over any others.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yup. They should. Lose the religion if you want public money. Islamic taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for Christian programs, vice versa, et cetera, whatever.


So, should (for example) the bell ringers of the Salvation Army be told that they cannot solicit funds from the general public?

If a street preacher wants to cry hell fire and brimstone in a public place, should he or she be any less free to speak than a noisy protestor? If I am free to burn a U.S. flag in a public place, shouldn't my neighbor be free to carry his cross? In each of these cases, someone is using areas maintained by public funds to express themselves, or raise money.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
The point of separation of church and state is not to exclude all religion from the state. It is to give equal rights to all religions. If there was a Muslim version of the boyscouts, they would have the same right to hold after school meetings as the boyscouts. It is ridiculous to say that the goverment favors one group over another if it lets a group like the boyscouts have meetings after school. If you're a Muslim and there isn't a Muslim group at your child's school, go start one if you want your child to participate in that kind of program over boyscouts.

It is equally ridiculous to say "none of you can openly practice your religion in public because you might offend someone." That means that everyone's rights are being taken away. It is difficult to represent every religion, but I think that is unnecessary. There are generally public and personal areas even in public buildings. So if I want to put a cross in my cublicle and the person in my neighboring cubicle puts up a star of David, we should both be allowed to do this. However, a cross in the lobby would be inappropriate as this is not a religious organization. Christmas lights, however, have very little to do with Christmas, and I know a lot of people who are not Christian who still put up Christmas lights every year. There is a middle ground here, and I think that people are not seeing that because we have all become so concerned with being politically correct.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #11 By: Citizen CariElf - 1/3/2005 4:24:15 PM
The point of separation of church and state is not to exclude all religion from the state. It is to give equal rights to all religions. If there was a Muslim version of the boyscouts, they would have the same right to hold after school meetings as the boyscouts. It is ridiculous to say that the goverment favors one group over another if it lets a group like the boyscouts have meetings after school. If you're a Muslim and there isn't a Muslim group at your child's school, go start one if you want your child to participate in that kind of program over boyscouts.


/salute to you for a reasonable moderate position. It is much the same as my own. If someone wants a scouts type organization for children that never mentions the word "god", then great, I'm all for it, and I have no issue at all with a school being used to hold meetings for such an organization, or with any other publicly funded facility being used for same.

The same holds for any anti-addiction group that may want to use a facility. If you can create one that doesn't reference god or a higher authority or whatever it is you want to avoid, great. File a request to use the public facilities and have that request treated with equal weight to the request by a group that is somehow associated with a religion. Neither side is favored, and no official affiliation exists.

That continues to be my problem with the view taken by the other side. There continues to be this adamant stance that any semblance of religion should bar any use of public property or publicly funded facilities with a stated reasoning that the religious affiliation automatically signifies a tacit acknowledgement by the state of some officially sanctioned religion. I can't for the life of me understand how "a reasonable man" would see the affiliation that is required to pass any such church and state separation test, yet somehow the ACLU lawyers are able to argue on such points in front of judges and get the decisions they want again and again.

I'm wondering where the reasonable man really is. I mention reasonable man because it's part of what I remember from the old mandatory business law classes, and how most things in law had to pass the old "reasonble man" test. What would a reasonable man be expected to do or not do given a set of information.

Personally, in cases of groups like the Scouts, it's possible that the solution for many is that the Scouts should meet at Church halls or other such places. That sounds all fine, well and good, but... then we run into the problem of the Scouts meeting at a Catholic church and having to be a "catholic scouts" troop, or meeting at a Methodist church, etc. I'd rather personally have the scouts remain "non-denominational", even if it means that they're using publicly funded facilities. Publicly funded facilities by the way that derive much of their funding from myself and many others in the majority that don't have problems with our money funding buildings for such uses.

Unfortunately, even if, somehow we came to a point where a majority of citizens in an area voted to REQUIRE local schools to make themselves available for use by the Scouts or by A.A. or some similar organizations that law would get overturned because it would be called unconstitutional and in violation of the 1st Ammendment. How a valid law, passed through constitutional means, serving the will of the people should come to get tossed out because of legal precedents that have changed over the last 100 or so years is beyond me, yet it's exactly what I would expect given the current court system and the cockamamie decisions they have put forth and/or relied upon.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #3 By: Myrrander - 1/3/2005 1:45:40 PM
Yup. They should. Lose the religion if you want public money. Islamic taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for Christian programs, vice versa, et cetera, whatever.


Sorry Myr this is just plain wrong. Following *your* logic would mean that anyone who believes in anything (you and I included) should not be able to use public facilities.
Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
When religion is in the government such as, "In God We Trust" or in the Pledge, "one nation under God" is not promoting religion in any way to the people of our country. These statements do not go back to religion in general, nor do they even go back to one kid of religon or another. They are statements that go all the way back to the beginning of our nation, along with what our nation stands for. So the few that for some reason can't stand the fact that those quotes are on our money and part of this nation, then you can easily immigrate to another nation where those statements do not go back to the foundation of their country.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
CariElf, terpfan1980 and Myrrander

All of you make good points. Personally, I have no problem with Boy Scouts or any groups with religious ties using public areas. I just have a problem, when at a government event, any type of religion is brought in by the organizers. If a pray group wants to use a class room during non class times in a school, I'm fine with that. But no invocation should be given at a graduation, but a moment of silence is good. If the valedictorian wants to talk about how their god helped them achieve their goals, that is OK. But the school Principle should not. Rooms should be available before a graduation for the prayer service (I forgot what they call it, even if I did attend the event when I graduated, before I found my beliefs).

I have a problem when the Government instigates a religion.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry Myr this is just plain wrong. Following *your* logic would mean that anyone who believes in anything (you and I included) should not be able to use public facilities.


Only if we use those public facilities to promote a religion. Or in my case, a lack of one. I don't think I deserve public facilities to give lectures on the benefits of atheism! I hold my own "non-religion" up to the same yardstick.

AA uses the 12 step idea, and one of those steps is to admit a higher power. Now, there are interpretations of this that take a non-religion view of this (such as the "higher power" being temptation) -- and really, unless they're handing out bible tracts or "join the Buddha in Nirvana" literature, I think they're OK.

What I mean is, that you, Drmiler, as a Christian (I presume based on past convos), have every right to facilities that your tax dollars helped pay for. So do I as a non-Christian for the same reason. We just can't be promoting any religion or any non-religion.

The government has to stay "religion neutral." Impossible? Perhaps. But I'm not the kind of person who goes running to the ACLU when I see a manger scene on a courthouse lawn. To me, that's a bit silly. And I keep my "In God We Trust" plaque up in my classroom, because the school board asks us too, and because it has been legislated by Congress to be the motto of the United States. I think it's a violation of the 1st ammendment, but in this case, it seems a much ado about nothing to raise a fuss over it -- that plaque doesn't change my mind about anything, nor does it seem to be converting the masses to one religion or another.

So yeah, I have a pretty harsh idea of "separation of church and state," but in practice, I admit that I let a lot slide. Manger scenes and ball game prayers aren't exactly government mandated religion, now are they? Even though they aren't FAIR, well, life isn't fair, right? I just want you all to know that I AM possessed of some common sense, no matter what extreme positions I hold in my idealistic little head.

And no, I don't have a single problem with Boy Scouts using public facilities. Better the Scouts than kids roaming the streets, eh? But the Scouts sometimes have used religion like a bludgeon, and this I abhor. But I'm not advocating punishing every Scout for the actions of the few.

See? The Myrr-man lives a moderate life even if he is an extreme atheistic socialist. Peace out, y'all.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
"one nation under God"


They are statements that go all the way back to the beginning of our nation


This statement don't go back to our nation's founding, it was added in the 1950s. That is why I'm against it.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're 100% right. On my plaque in the classroom that says "One Nation Under God" there's some fine print which says "Adopted by the US Congress as the Motto of the United States of America -- 1955."

It was the Eisenhower administration's answer to "godless communism." But it's still the "law of the land," so to speak, isn't it? And it isn't really hurting anyone, is it? Do your morals stop you spending money? If I offered you 5 crisp 100 dollar bills, no strings attatched, would you turn them down because they said "In God We Trust"? 50 bills? A thousand?

Be honest. What is "In God we Trust" or "Under God" in the pledge really hurting? The Supreme Court ruled way back in the 60s that nobody could be forced to say the pledge. So what's the beef, eh?
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
Well, I'm an atheist and I am in favour of separation of church and state (even though it seems to be a lot of issues under one name, I support most of them) because I don't want religion "crammed down my throat" by the goernment, and I want to avoid having a government that rules from "Christian" or any other religious principles (basically a theocracy) because I feel that although most of these priciples are good (ie: the 6th commandment is a good rule to follow, Christian charities are usually very reputable organizations), a lot of it has been twisted around, mostly by the likes of Pat Robertson and the religious right (who really turn me off to religion) into things like "don't let fags marry." Also, looking at history, a theocracy didn't do to well for Afghanistan, especially the women there.

Prayer in public schools: Big no-no. The way I see it, you can pray before school, you can pray after school, you can find a quiet corner of the library and read your religious text and pray quietly, you can even pray in your head if you get a spare moment in class. If you need to get out of school for a religious reason (such as a holiday), I have no problem with that, as long as you catch up. However, in government funded places, such as schools, there should be no prayers being led by teachers, staff, etc., because I view it as the government promoting certain religions. Even if you try to be inclusive to all religions, it is impossible to please everyone. Basically, I wouldn't want you ramming christianity down my throat, as I'm sure most right-wingers don't want their kids having Islam rammed down their throats, or being taught about "The Virtues of the Democratic Party and why you Should ALWAYS Vote for Them."

"Under God" : Well, I'm a Canadian, so I don't have to say the pledge of allegiance, but looking South of the 49th parallel, I think that a simple and effective solution would be to replace "under god" (which some people don't believe in, and always causes controversy) with "under the Constitution," because the Constitution is one of the things that sets America apart from many other countries. I'm pretty sure god isn't the source of America's high standing in the world. Anyway, back up here north of the 49th, our national anthem contains the line "God keep our land," and I keep standing.

See? The Myrr-man lives a moderate life even if he is an extreme atheistic socialist. Peace out, y'all.


Well, at least we have something in common...
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
So what's the beef, eh?


The beef seems to be that certain parts of our society have decided that "freedom" means, "you can't do that here". Think about it:

Freedom of Speech: unless your speech happens to offend a protected class of people**.

Freedom of the press: unless what the press is reporting happens to fall on the wrong side of political policies.

Freedom of assembly: unless your activities while assembling bothers the wrong people.

Freedom of association: unless your association is either religious in nature, or does not agree with the current agenda of any or all protected classes**.

Freedom of gun ownership: unless your gun looks scary, or you live in a city with a high crime rate.

Freedom to Blog: unless you actually use the word "blog", then you should be censored (Right Cordelia? lol)

**Protected classes are exempt from this rule. Unless of course they happen to be conservative or republican. ;~D
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Perhaps. It can happen. But why not stop injustices from happening when they do happen vs. attacking every display of religion? Which is the better use of resources?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Be honest. What is "In God we Trust" or "Under God" in the pledge really hurting? The Supreme Court ruled way back in the 60s that nobody could be forced to say the pledge. So what's the beef, eh?


For me (maybe not for others) it is the perfect example of Government adding religion. Where many will say it is tradition, like "In God we trust" (which I have no problem with), but "under God" has no base in tradition. Maybe it is a personal thing for me. I am highly patriotic, then here come some religious people enacting Government laws defacing the one pledge that makes me warm inside. Call me a radical if you want, but I have spent many days sorting this out in my soul. In the end, the fact is the statement "Under God" was not there before 1955 and the Government was not projecting religion into the pledge (soul) of this country. After that IMO the Government indorsed religion, even if I don't have to say that portion, it is still an addition that does indorse religion and can be removed. I would prefer that if people want to add it into their personnel pledge, them I have no problem that, but lets not add it into something that does not require it.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then we have to elect congresspeople who support that idea, Lee. I know this isn't a pure democracy and all, but the majority doesn't mind "In God We Trust." I know you can make a hundred arguments (what if the majority supported rape) -- but this isn't really hurting anybody like that, is it?

I support your viewpoint, actually, I hate that plaque up in my room. But I keep it in deference to the majority's wishes, not my own.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
t this isn't really hurting anybody like that, is it?


Ya, I know, but I have a constitutional right to bitch and moan all I want.

But would it really hurt anybody by droping the statement? Then we would not be fighting over what the constitution says, right? (and save us all a few dollars from the ACLU)
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Are we sure we want to remove all sacred symbols from our public places?

"Nature Spirituality necessitates respect for the natural rhythms of the Earth and the Cosmos. One participates in a conscious dialog between nature and the self. Nature, including humanity ,animals, organic and non organic physical matter as well as non physical entities and energies is seen as living expressions and or literal embodiment of the Sacred, essential truth, wisdom, and power. Nature is seen as, experienced, and known to be sacred. " ;~D

http://www.solarraven.com/naturecentered.html
Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
But would it really hurt anybody by droping the statement?


Indeed it would, the majority of the United States. This is democracy and in democracy the majority rules. And the next time you see a sporting event where millions of Americans sing the song, "God Bless America" think to yourself, "If it really did hurt people, then why do they still sing that song in the Super Bowl and other NFL games, NCAA sporting events, in professional baseball games, NBA games, and so on?"

Another thing, I do not see how "Under God" is a big problem. If you do not believe in God, than do not say "Under God" in the Pledge. On top of that, no one is forcing anyone to say the Pledge in the first place.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unfortionately most do not treat religion symbolically and aesthetically as though touring a museum and are offended by religious displays on public grounds. Separation clause is designed to protect us from religious tyranny--feel free to worship but don't impose a sect on others.