Necessity of Religious Separation?

[Neale]

The history of the idea of the separation of church and state is a long one that stretches back to the Reformation and the subsequent counter-reformation, the thirty years wars, the St. Bartholomew Day massacre in France when the crown ordered the death of all the protestants in the kingdom, to the formation of the colonies by often mutually hostile religious groups. This should be common history, and to history buffs it is. But what is not commonly known is that it is the evangelic churches in early America that pushed the hardest for the separation of church and state, and often considered a religious duty to do so. So why is it that we're seeing so much of a Judeo-Christian integration into government?

Taken from here:
The original Constitution really didn't say all that much about religion. God is not mentioned, and the only reference to religion is a ban on providing religious tests for holding office. The 18th-century evangelicals were among the strongest advocates of this view and of the Bill of Rights, which declared that “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion.” Throughout the states, evangelicals pushed hard for ratification of the Bill of Rights in the state legislatures.
It is ironic, then, that evangelicals—so focused on the “true” history—have neglected their own.

The Jefferson Bible attempted to condense the gospels into one cohesive narrative. As per the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, we see a strong supporter for the separation of church and state. Jefferson wrote, "Government involvement in religious matters tends to end in the restraint of religion...Civil Rights do not depend on religious beliefs."

So I revert back to my original question. We see politicians integrate religious ideology in order to gain political clout and social faction (i.e. Bush speaking about God, etc.), so as we see lawful paradigms de-evolving, what are you views of the necessity of a separation? (See poll, and feel free to respond in-thread as well)

Articles taken from ATS as well.

 

[Sunstone]

If I were anti Christianity, I would be out advocating an union of Church and State as the surest possible way to destroy the faith of Christians. Nothing would corrupt Christianity faster than that. And even the whiff of it that we're getting these days from the Religious Right has already considerably corroded the morals and religion of the Religious Right.

 

[doppelganger]

I answered "other," but I would answer "yes" just not for the one reason stated.

Combining relgion and state pretty well does in whatever meaning the religion might have held.

The state will survive just fine - it eats humanity on a daily basis with only the slightest indigestion.

 

[Neale]

Combining relgion and state pretty well does in whatever meaning the religion might have held.

Consider too the importance of religion in politics, which is mainly where the original post was directed.

Would a die-hard Christian presidential candidate have a better chance than say a Buddhist or Muslim? In an idealized "American" model, no - they would have equal political opportunity. Realistically, the Christian will almost always seize the victory, as per the American model.

This can go without saying in any nation which has a "majority" religion.

 

[doppelganger]

Would a die-hard Christian presidential candidate have a better chance than say a Buddhist or Muslim? In an idealized "American" model, no - they would have equal political opportunity. Realistically, the Christian will almost always seize the victory, as per the American model.

This can go without saying in any nation which has a "majority" religion.

Well, it's not the "wall of separation" between church and state that changes one's chances of getting elected. It's a popularity contest after all, and people will vote for those they think are more like them. Unless you could "blind" voters to candidates' religious creeds (which is impossible), they will always be inclined to vote for the candidate who shares their "relgious" values.

The purpose of the "wall" is to try to minimize the extent to which the religious creeds of the majority are imposed upon the minority by the force and power of the State.

In that sense, is there some risk to the State from not maintaining the wall of separation? Is there more political stability in letting minorities feel enfranchised and protecting them from the natural impulses of the relgious majority? Or is the State better off enforcing religious homogeneity?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Would a die-hard Christian presidential candidate have a better chance than say a Buddhist or Muslim? In an idealized "American" model, no - they would have equal political opportunity. Realistically, the Christian will almost always seize the victory, as per the American model.

Unfortunately, I believe they would automatically (at least in America) win over a member of another religion. Much of that seems to be due to misconceptions about other faiths- believing, for example, that those of other faiths are less inherently moral, or that they're more prone to doing something that would bring dishonor upon the nation.

 

[logician]

OUr forefathers knew the dangers of state-suppported religion, as many saw the bad effects of such first hand in Europe. Thus the emphasis on keeping them separate in the founding of America.

 

[gnostic]

I believed that religion and state affair should remain separate.

Ireland is a perfect example that one's sect (or religion) can lead to persecution of the minority. It was just political, between the Republican and Unionist, it was between Catholics and Protestants (or more precisely Anglicans).

Neale had already mentioned Reformation and Counter Reformation, and the Thirty-Year's War that was fought in Europe. Not to mention the Crusade, and the long struggle between the Austrian and Ottoman empires, which were between Christians and Muslims.

Although they are political, where kingdom would fight against another kingdom, there are also religious overtones on these wars. Religion that have political (and military) powers have the tendency to produce tensions with other sect or other religion, and this can lead to persecution when the one in power pursuing their own agenda or cause.

 

[kai]

there are enough maniacs ruling the world without adding religious maniacs

keep it separate

 

[mostly harmless]

I take a very strong stance on keeping religion and state separate.

G.W.Bush seems to have forgotten that.

 

[Neale]

I take a very strong stance on keeping religion and state separate.

G.W.Bush seems to have forgotten that.

And I thank you for bringing it up. In a country that is majority Christian, if you have a "Christian" government, it's not going to feel like separation because of the at-home ideals.

What I'm pointing out is that in modern politics, there has to be religion - not necessarily enforced religion, but there's no escaping the tool of it as a political agenda.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I think people are more likely to forget it if it's their own religion in question. I think he would begin paying attention to the seperation of church and state if another religion were 'in power'.

 

[Neale]

I think people are more likely to forget it if it's their own religion in question. I think he would begin paying attention to the seperation of church and state if another religion were 'in power'.

Exactly! This isn't so much of an issue today in the U.S. because of widely accepted Christian idealism. In countries with high concentrations of other religions vying for "majority," one would begin to see I believe, a more staunch push for religious integration simply because of political platform.

Religious seperation is existant to sustain religious minorities in check while ensuring that the "majority" religious ideologies become more and more intertwined within the fabric of society, and in the parentheticals. How many times have you seen secular businesses, especially after 9/11, post on their advertisement board: "God bless America?" I think one can make a case to place [The Judeo Christian] before that.

On the same effect, I'm sure everyone remembers the heated "Ten Commandments at the courthouse" dabate in some podunk Arkansas county that made national headlines for about two months. Their justification for keeping them up was that they (the Commandments) was a "universally accepted law of moral code." Could this not be applied to Buddhist Dharma, Pagan ideological dogma, etc? If that was surely the case, I would have pushed for a statue of Bill and Ted with the inscription "Be Excellent to Each Other."

Edit: I'm looking to make this topic an extensive research project both for the 2006 Southern Indiana RISC conference and the 2006 Midsouth Philosophy Conference in Memphis, so any input, thoughts or additions would be greatly appreciated

 

[writer]

agree with #2 absolutely.
i'd only add that joinin religion w/ state (ie legally) also corrupts the state, as well as the religion, or church.
That said, that has pretty much zero to do with an elected official, such as Mr Bush, being as religious as he wants, or expressing his, whatever it is, as much as he wants. Or voters doing likewise (if u vote).
That's called freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

There's a huge difference between legal, or governmental, religious interference; and
governmental (and any) folks freedom as private citizens, or in regard to their nonlegal-, or popular, actions

 

[mostly harmless]

agree with #2 absolutely.
i'd only add that joinin religion w/ state (ie legally) also corrupts the state, as well as the religion, or church.
That said, that has pretty much zero to do with an elected official, such as Mr Bush, being as religious as he wants, or expressing his, whatever it is, as much as he wants. Or voters doing likewise (if u vote).
That's called freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

There's a huge difference between legal, or governmental, religious interference; and
governmental (and any) folks freedom as private citizens, or in regard to their nonlegal-, or popular, actions

President Bush has freedom of religion and freedom of speech, Yes. However, being in the position he is in allows him to create policies that are based on his OWN moral beliefs. I think that it is wrong for a politician to try to force their ideals on other people. This is America, and because we are a country of such diversity it is ABSOLUTELY important that we keep church and state very separate from each other.

Look at all the drama since Bush and his far-right buddies have been in power. The Terri Shiavo case. Abortion. Stem cell research. Birth control and emergency contraception jerked around by him. Even proper sex ed for school kids is not encouraged-Bush yanks funding from schools if they don't follow an abstinence only curricula. If our leaders or anyone else think it is wrong to have an abortion, or use emergency contraception or birth control does not give them the right to tell another THEY can't have that choice over THEIR body. Teaching our kids about their bodies properly so that maybe we can prevent kids from getting pregnant (instead of just saying 'don't do it') should be encouraged. Instead of throwing away perfectly good embryos with medical waste they should be used for research that may one day save lives..Prez Bush claims to be Pro-life, but, pro who's life? Terri Shiavo's case was a tragedy, that should have involved family only. Politicians have NO business butting into personal affairs like that. There are courts to handle personal disputes and the family made use of them..the politicians only wanted to jump in for voter points. I honestly can't see how God would take offense at one of his children being allowed to go home. We put our animals to sleep so they won't suffer, we call it the right and humane thing to do. BUT, we force our loved ones to suffer and stay alive on machines instead of allowing them to die with dignity. We call that LOVE. We say it's the right thing to do.

It is imperative, in a country of such diversity, that religion keeps separate from state. A persons religious beliefs and personal decisions are between them and God, NOT, them and the president (or anyone else for that matter) and God.

Sorry for the rant...but somethings get me a little worked up.

 

[Neale]

...Sorry for the rant...

:clapVery well said! :clap

 

[gnostic]

Look at all the drama since Bush and his far-right buddies have been in power. The Terri Shiavo case. Abortion. Stem cell research. Birth control and emergency contraception jerked around by him.

And let's not forget Iraq. Several times, he include God in his speech that they would win because God is on his side.

I doubt very God is taking any interest in his wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and against terrorism. I don't think God is taking the oppositions' sides too. If he does exist, he is disinterested and indifferent to our petty affairs of mankind.

Now unless Bush (or bin Laden) is a prophet, then Bush has no idea of God's position about Shiavo, abortion, stem cell, etc. A lot of people also make ridiculous claims on these issues that God don't want these things to progress. How does anyone know what God think about this? If God is real as these Christians to be, then why did he not prevent Shiavo's death, or stop abortion or the stem cell research?

 

[mostly harmless]

And let's not forget Iraq. Several times, he include God in his speech that they would win because God is on his side.

I doubt very God is taking any interest in his wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and against terrorism. I don't think God is taking the oppositions' sides too. If he does exist, he is disinterested and indifferent to our petty affairs of mankind.

Now unless Bush (or bin Laden) is a prophet, then Bush has no idea of God's position about Shiavo, abortion, stem cell, etc. A lot of people also make ridiculous claims on these issues that God don't want these things to progress. How does anyone know what God think about this? If God is real as these Christians to be, then why did he not prevent Shiavo's death, or stop abortion or the stem cell research?

I didn't forget Iraq...


The real kicker was the elections..and Bush claiming that God himself put him in the White House.:no:

 

[gnostic]

and Bush claiming that God himself put him in the White House.:no:

Oh, then he is a prophet.

He must also be a Saviour too...of Iraq.

Then the question is: Do the Iraqis wanted to be saved, whether they like or not?

 

[lamplighter]

I think the current situation in America is a perfect example of needing to keep religion and goverment seperate. Because imagine how difficult it would be to keep things fair if such seperation didn't exist.