NationStates Jolt Archive

Many Americans on this forum clearly see that the seperation of the church and state is something to be held sacriscent. Myself, I dont see it as important but I can see why its there. However, what I see as rather stupid is the immature logic going on around me as a result. Just because the Church is kept seprate from State affairs, does not mean that the Church itself is a bad thing. To many people here, and I fear in America in general are making the assumption that because it needs to be kept out of Government's business it is an evil force. That logic is very flawed.

To many people here, and I fear in America in general are making the assumption that because it needs to be kept out of Government's business it is an evil force. That logic is very flawed.

While I agree with that that logic is flawed, I see it very rarely.

Ahh here we go again.

Have you read European history? There are many examples of why goverment by religion is a bad thing.

Look to the Middle East.

The Taliban of Pakistan who ran Afghanistan.

Ahh here we go again.

Have you read European history? There are many examples of why goverment by religion is a bad thing.

Look to the Middle East.

The Taliban of Pakistan who ran Afghanistan.

i agree with you in most cases there. i can see a few exceptions, look at tibet, when it was a country, it functioned very well on it's own. it just seems that most of the best governments are either the least successful of shortest lasting. tibet was taken over easily by china again. and dictatorships, good governments, last hardley any time.

the joining of religion and state is such a outmoded concept i, personally, consider it very backward. Europe has been through the whole ordeal with Republica Chrisitana etc, and it leads to bad places, as The Black Forrest pointed out.
for this reason if the church wants to involve itself in the sate it should be treated with great suspicion and seen as a 'bad thing'

then again i think organised religion itself is a pretty bad thing, so i might be biased...

I personally don't see the problem. So long as everyone within the country maintians their religious freedom, there's no harm done, yes? I don't speak of extreme cases like many countries in the middle east or Europe during the middle ages, but religious influences in government are completely okay as far as I'm concerened... Like the phrase 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance or the Ten Commandments in a courtroom. My point is, as long as everybody is allowed to practise their own religion, complete secularization of the government is not necesary.

I personally don't see the problem. So long as everyone within the country maintians their religious freedom, there's no harm done, yes? I don't speak of extreme cases like many countries in the middle east or Europe during the middle ages, but religious influences in government are completely okay as far as I'm concerened... Like the phrase 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance or the Ten Commandments in a courtroom. My point is, as long as everybody is allowed to practise their own religion, complete secularization of the government is not necesary.
not everybody practices religion. why should those that don't say the phrase "under god"?
or those who excersise their religious freedom by believing in multiple Gods?

I personally don't see the problem. So long as everyone within the country maintians their religious freedom, there's no harm done, yes? I don't speak of extreme cases like many countries in the middle east or Europe during the middle ages, but religious influences in government are completely okay as far as I'm concerened... Like the phrase 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance or the Ten Commandments in a courtroom. My point is, as long as everybody is allowed to practise their own religion, complete secularization of the government is not necesary.

The government represents the "people". And is their servant. Government is supposed to be "Secular", not involving itself in "spiritual" affairs (which is what the church government is for, with it's spiritual and secular [the Diaconate is a secular office; for example]). General government is there merely for "Worldly" (sic. "Secular") governance of the people in general. There is absolutely no need, or reason for the government to involve itself in anything outside of secular issues.

Well I am not really going to be radical to one side or the other. Religion can be a very good thing but I think that if we want to at least try to have a non Prejudice and open minded government then we should keep religion out of it. If religions weren’t trying to constantly persecute each other then it wouldn’t be a problem but I doubt that anything like that is going to happen in a long time (if ever). On the other hand spirituality is a good thing because it brings people together but it seems people would rather separate and persecute than unite and try to do good. Although both religion and government can be corrupt I think that having them mix could lead to an extremely barbaric and biased society where we regress back into the point were some religions are prized over others.

The separation between Church and State, as I'm sure you've heard before, was only meant to prevent a state-established religion, i.e. The Church of England. The first Americans sought refuge here in order to get away from the persecution they were experiencing in England, and the US was established by Christians for Christians in the beginning. I don't mean to say that only Christians should live in the US, but the country began as a safe haven for Protestants, so we should at least respect the Founders' beliefs.

Now, on to religion in politics. I don't believe it should exist. As much as I believe Senatorial hearings or judicial proceedings should begin with a prayer, I know that Muslims, Jews, Mormons, etc. don't want to hear a Christian prayer, and vice versa. This includes prayer in schools also. I remember in high school how all of my classmates were constantly petitioning for prayer in schools, but do you really want to start off the school day with a series of multi-religious prayers? Not me. Just saying the Pledge of Allegiance everyday was a hassle. By the way, prayer was just an example that kind of excludes atheism. Sorry atheists.

But all in all, I don't see a problem with having the Ten Commandments posted in government buildings because it's exactly what the Founding Fathers meant for their country when they created it.

As was said before, the government is supposed to govern us in a secular manner. Our founding fathers paid attention in history class and realised what is almost 100% bound to happen when religion is allowed to meddle in government affairs: They will undoubtedly turn government into an extension of the Church. And since the Church isn't the most democratic of our day, I think we can all see what road a country in that state would be going down on. (ex. Iran, all of Medieval Europe, etc..)

The separation between Church and State, as I'm sure you've heard before, was only meant to prevent a state-established religion, i.e. The Church of England. The first Americans sought refuge here in order to get away from the persecution they were experiencing in England, and the US was established by Christians for Christians in the beginning. I don't mean to say that only Christians should live in the US, but the country began as a safe haven for Protestants, so we should at least respect the Founders' beliefs.

Now, on to religion in politics. I don't believe it should exist. As much as I believe Senatorial hearings or judicial proceedings should begin with a prayer, I know that Muslims, Jews, Mormons, etc. don't want to hear a Christian prayer, and vice versa. This includes prayer in schools also. I remember in high school how all of my classmates were constantly petitioning for prayer in schools, but do you really want to start off the school day with a series of multi-religious prayers? Not me. Just saying the Pledge of Allegiance everyday was a hassle. By the way, prayer was just an example that kind of excludes atheism. Sorry atheists.

But all in all, I don't see a problem with having the Ten Commandments posted in government buildings because it's exactly what the Founding Fathers meant for their country when they created it.


Actually the "United States" as an entity was not established "by christians" or "for christians"; but rather by revolutionaries seeking self-governance against oppressive tendencies accross the pond.

If you're reffering to the individuals colonies themselves; you are partially right. Though many did not fair much different then their english decent.

The Puritans of Massachusetts; were just as theocratic and oppressive as the crown and C-of-E.... And Virginia had it's own problems (being established under an Anglical charter). Most of the Colonies, however, were established by "people" fleeing persecution; who wished to avoid the same occurence in the future in their own charters (Maryland founded by Roman Catholics; but with established clauses for freedom of religion for all groups; Providence Plantation [Later Rhode Island], by Baptists, but with established religious freedoms).

Other stats lacking in charter (Such as Virginia) established such prior to the Revolution (under their own constitutions) [Massachusetts being the odd-ball].

Many of the heavier writters involved in founding the entity known as "The United States" were not christian.... Many were deists... So attributing the US's foundation as "by christians; for christians" is no where close to true.

the colonies may have been established for religious purposes- but the united states of america was not.

the founding fathers are often cited as christians. however, what people fail to realize is that the founding fathers were merely deists. they in fact, thomas jefferson penned the seperation of church and state clause for virginia. This he considered on of his greatest achievements, over his presidency.

which means, the writer of the constitution believed in strict separation of church and state.

which means, this is not a christian country. it was not founded for christians, it was not founded for religious reasons ( it was economical reasons), and it was not founded by christians.

Many Americans on this forum clearly see that the seperation of the church and state is something to be held sacriscent. Myself, I dont see it as important but I can see why its there. However, what I see as rather stupid is the immature logic going on around me as a result. Just because the Church is kept seprate from State affairs, does not mean that the Church itself is a bad thing. To many people here, and I fear in America in general are making the assumption that because it needs to be kept out of Government's business it is an evil force. That logic is very flawed.
The church in America (with a very few exceptions) is a bad thing. It's a bad thing because it's bad. For a long time it's been polluted by involvement with government and a desire to be part of politics. The priest who takes the pupit to tell a congregation how to vote on election day isn't nourishing their spiritual lives or helping them find that capactiy in themselves.

The government can do a good job being government, it does a pretty miserable job of being church. Likewise Church can do a pretty good job of being church, but not while it has designs on being goverment. The God of Christ laid down the groundrules pretty clearly, people should be free (God gave them free will), it's better if they choose God's path over evil, but it is a choice they have to make of their own accord rather than having a tyrant make it for them. That so few christians understand the wall exists to protect the Church, perhaps more than it exists to protect the state, is a testiment to how few Christians there really are.