Church and State: Seperation of powers or a mutualship that should be recongized? (1 Viewer)

[128shot]

Alright, I'm a secularist, but my bias aside, it seems some countries get by well having a state recongized religion


Lets take for instance Sweden, or finland. They have offical "state" churches and it seems that it has not affected their growth a society. On the other hand, if you look at a place like Saudi Arabia or Iran, it seems to only foster hate when the state is a figure in religion.


So is it religion that is bad? The manipulative man? Or can you reach a compromise that gives the religious men a say in secularist politics? Or does the 1st ammendment cover the fact that religion should be abolished in the political realm?

Its open..

 

[alphamale]

Alright, I'm a secularist, but my bias aside, it seems some countries get by well having a state recongized religion


Lets take for instance Sweden, or finland. They have offical "state" churches and it seems that it has not affected their growth a society. On the other hand, if you look at a place like Saudi Arabia or Iran, it seems to only foster hate when the state is a figure in religion.


So is it religion that is bad? The manipulative man? Or can you reach a compromise that gives the religious men a say in secularist politics? Or does the 1st ammendment cover the fact that religion should be abolished in the political realm?

Its open..

England has a state religion as well.

 

[liberal1]

When a national religion is manifested in country renowned for its extreme diversity (ahem... The U.S.) you always run the risk of offending the minorities of the country. When put together, all of the Buddhists, Atheists and Scientologists seem more formidable when they are all matched up against one religion.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Religion has no facts, it's a fairy tail! If the state supports religion then I think everyone deserves a free hot air ballon and a 15 year vaction to Disney Land.

 

[tryreading]

England has a state religion as well.

Thank God winning the war against England extracted us from that nightmare.

 

[millsy]

Alright, I'm a secularist, but my bias aside, it seems some countries get by well having a state recongized religion


Lets take for instance Sweden, or finland. They have offical "state" churches and it seems that it has not affected their growth a society. On the other hand, if you look at a place like Saudi Arabia or Iran, it seems to only foster hate when the state is a figure in religion.


So is it religion that is bad? The manipulative man? Or can you reach a compromise that gives the religious men a say in secularist politics? Or does the 1st ammendment cover the fact that religion should be abolished in the political realm?

Its open..

What is the State Church of Finland? I have lived here for about 2 years, I have done papers on the government here, and I haven't heard anything of it. I am certainly not saying that they don't have one, but if they do it has nothing to do with their political process anymore. This is an extremely secular society.

 

[tryreading]

As long as there are issues dealt with in state that people's views are effected by religion, there will never be a complete seperation.

Nor do I think there should be. Despite the obvious historical downsides to organized religion, if you look into the tenents of most religions you'll see a very good source of helping people in becoming moral human beings.

I used to be a secularist, namely because I was so sick of the anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion religious arguments being treated as if they, in and of themselves justified imposing your will on others. I wished people would just stop voting with their religion, and people would just leave morals out of government.
Unfortunately nothing's that simple.

Voters will always use their religious and/or moral base when voting. There is nothing wrong with that. Anybody religious doesn't need to, and shouldn't be expected to become unreligious when voting. Their beliefs are part of who they are. If a persons religion guides him, or even if he only considers religion when voting or making other decisions, that's his right.

The thing, though, is to keep government out of any type of control or support of the religious process, and religion out of any control of government. There can be no establishment by government, no posting the tenets or symbols of religion on public property forcing all taxpayers to subsidize and therefore endorse and support religion financially. There can be no subversive attempt allowed to install a supreme court justice by pushing her reverent behavior and implying her attendance at a particular church means she is pro-life. These are two examples, there are probably a million others.

Religion is great for most people. And there is a lot of it in government because of the many religious people who work there. And that's fine, because nobody has to finance or support the individual's beliefs. His conscience is his own.

 

[George_Washington]

Alright, I'm a secularist, but my bias aside, it seems some countries get by well having a state recongized religion


Lets take for instance Sweden, or finland. They have offical "state" churches and it seems that it has not affected their growth a society. On the other hand, if you look at a place like Saudi Arabia or Iran, it seems to only foster hate when the state is a figure in religion.


So is it religion that is bad? The manipulative man? Or can you reach a compromise that gives the religious men a say in secularist politics? Or does the 1st ammendment cover the fact that religion should be abolished in the political realm?

Its open..

I think what it proves is that, despite what marxists have been trying to do since the early 1800's, you can never get rid of religion. Having religion as a cultural aspect of a nation doesn't neccessarily have to lead to oppression or stunt the growth of science or mathematics. In fact, some people argue that good religion can stimulate math and science. I think that's the case. People always say that religion hinders intellectual growth but I think it's just the opposite. When a person has religion, spirituality, and morality in their lives, I think it is easier to grow intellectually. And I don't mean just to grow in the mental sense but in other elements of life as well.


If you look at countries like Sweden, Denmark, England, Finland, etc. They are comfortable with religion being a part of their societies and it has seemed to produce great growth in the sciences and arts. Consider a country like Israel. Israel has many influences of the Jewish religion and it is well developed in technology.

Some people would probably counter my arguments by saying that Europe isn't that religious anymore. But then again, they aren't as hung up about religious elements in their governments, cities, etc. like the far left liberals over here are.

I think the bottom line is, people fear religion far too much than they should.

 

[Alex]

Our Constitution and religious beliefs in general are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Our Constitution is a means to control the government and provide freedoms for its citizens. Most religions are meant to impose guidelines and rules to live by on its adherents.

Religion has no place in a free society. It is an individual belief and is better left to the individual.

 

[Sir_Alec]

Our Constitution and religious beliefs in general are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Our Constitution is a means to control the government and provide freedoms for its citizens. Most religions are meant to impose guidelines and rules to live by on its adherents.

Religion has no place in a free society. It is an individual belief and is better left to the individual.

Amen :roll:

 

[Narph]

So is it religion that is bad? The manipulative man? Or can you reach a compromise that gives the religious men a say in secularist politics? Or does the 1st ammendment cover the fact that religion should be abolished in the political realm?

Its open..

The first ammendment does not say that religion should be abolished in the political realm. I would like to know where any one comes up with that crap?
If you read the first ammendment all it says is that the congress shall make no law about a establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. Please note that this only binds the fedral goverment not to make laws about religion not the state.:mrgreen:


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Columbusite]

If you read the first ammendment all it says is that the congress shall make no law about a establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. Please note that this only binds the fedral goverment not to make laws about religion not the state.:mrgreen:

The 14th Amendment takes care of that. States are included.

 

[Columbusite]

Amen :roll:

I would add that countries such as these, like England, have the freedom they do in spite of having a state religion. When their state religion had control England was a very repressive country, likewise Spain under the Catholic dictator Franco, and similar instances all over Europe. It seems as though they have their current freedoms due to the state churches having been neutered.

 

[Narph]

No where in this amendment does it say anything about religion. All it is saying is that the state can't make laws about privileges or immunities of citizens of the US. Witch is kinda vague but basically is reaffirming that they can't go over Federal law. But if you construe it as religion thet privileges could be anthing. Also I don't must care for a Amendment that was imposed at Gun point. If you don't follow that. This amendment was not ratified through Democratic means the south after the civil war was forced to ratify it. So much for a free country. Do you people read the amendment or just go off what you hear about them? Please grow a brain and think for your selves.
If you think about this amendment it says that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" Do you no what abridge means. You find it used in a lot of the later day amendment but I don't think people really know what it means.
If you where to take that to hart then states could not make any law about privileges or uminenties either way to give or to deny. Also it does not use the word right and I say right as in examlpe "right to keep and bear arms". The Constitution does not say any thing about what those privileges are.

abridge:to shorten in duration or extent

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[Columbusite]

No where in this amendment does it say anything about religion. All it is saying is that the state can't make laws about privileges or immunities of citizens of the US. Witch is kinda vague but basically is reaffirming that they can't go over Federal law. But if you construe it as religion thet privileges could be anthing. Also I don't must care for a Amendment that was imposed at Gun point. If you don't follow that. This amendment was not ratified through Democratic means the south after the civil war was forced to ratify it. So much for a free country. Do you people read the amendment or just go off what you hear about them? Please grow a brain and think for your selves.
If you think about this amendment it says that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" Do you no what abridge means. You find it used in a lot of the later day amendment but I don't think people really know what it means.
If you where to take that to hart then states could not make any law about privileges or uminenties either way to give or to deny. Also it does not use the word right and I say right as in examlpe "right to keep and bear arms". The Constitution does not say any thing about what those privileges are.

abridge:to shorten in duration or extent

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section one trumps state constitutions. The courts have demonstrated this repeatedly. The position on religion in our federal Constitution is what all states must follow. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof" and there is a ban on religious tests for public office. Religion is only mentioned in exclusionary terms, ie, kept out of our government. Work on your reading comprehension and understand what "respecting an establishment of religion" means.

 

[Narph]

Section one trumps state constitutions. The courts have demonstrated this repeatedly. The position on religion in our federal Constitution is what all states must follow.

I will try to make this question plane.

WHERE IN THE 14th AMENDMENT DOES IT MENTION RELIGION?

Try reading the amendment your self!!!!

 

[Columbusite]

I will try to make this question plane.

WHERE IN THE 14th AMENDMENT DOES IT MENTION RELIGION?

Try reading the amendment your self!!!!

It doesn't need to.

 

[Narph]

It doesn't need to.

So your saying that a law doesn't need to mention the subject that you claim the law supports.:roll: Thats insanity.
Laws are not vague suggestion they are very specific. If the 14th amendment does not mention religion or even elude to it how can you say the law has anything to do with it? Or at least give a reason why it doesn't need to!

 

[tryreading]

So your saying that a law doesn't need to mention the subject that you claim the law supports.:roll: Thats insanity.
Laws are not vague suggestion they are very specific. If the 14th amendment does not mention religion or even elude to it how can you say the law has anything to do with it? Or at least give a reason why it doesn't need to!

I think I've figured out how you got your screen name. Narph is the sound made when someone puts their hand over another person's mouth while they are talking. Maybe this has happened to you a lot.

 

[Columbusite]

So your saying that a law doesn't need to mention the subject that you claim the law supports.:roll: Thats insanity.
Laws are not vague suggestion they are very specific. If the 14th amendment does not mention religion or even elude to it how can you say the law has anything to do with it? Or at least give a reason why it doesn't need to!

The 14th Amendment makes the US Constitution the law of the land. Since the Constitution keeps the government from getting into religious matters, so too must state governments stay out of it. You're not the first to bring up this point and if you did the research instead of displaying your embarassing ignorance, you would have found there is a very simple answer.

 

[Narph]

The 14th Amendment makes the US Constitution the law of the land. Since the Constitution keeps the government from getting into religious matters, so too must state governments stay out of it. You're not the first to bring up this point and if you did the research instead of displaying your embarassing ignorance, you would have found there is a very simple answer.

I have done a a lot of research. quote"you would have found there is a very simple answer."end quote
The simple answer you keep pointing to is court cases that
a few select judges decided on. If it was so simple the only thing that one should have to point to is the amendment it self not someones perception of that amendment!

 

[tryreading]

I have done a a lot of research. quote"you would have found there is a very simple answer."end quote
The simple answer you keep pointing to is court cases that
a few select judges decided on. If it was so simple the only thing that one should have to point to is the amendment it self not someones perception of that amendment!

How old are you?

 

[Patrickt]

Answers: Church of England and the Lutheran Church of Finland.

In Finland, in the late 1980's over 90% of the population belonged to the Lutheran Church of Finland and even more participated occasionally. As long as the population is homogenous it doesn't seem to be a problem but as the population becomes more diverse it can be a problem.

The Lutheran Church of Finland apparently collects an annual fee that is collected by the government along with income tax and they also get a share of corporate income taxes.

The King of England, or Queen I suppose, is the head of the Church of England and as such is prohibited from marrying a Catholic. Interesting. Only Catholics are officially excluded.

 

[billybobama]

Anytime you mix any religion with any government process you are mixing gasoline and fire. We are experiencing the explosion right now.

 

[Ikari]

The first amendment in respect to religion was made to protect religious expression and practice from the state. That is why Congress is forbidden from making laws which would infringe upon the free practice and expression of religion. Government and religion are to be separate in order to protect religion from the tyranny of the state.