Do you favor Religious Government?

[Jetboogieman]

The debate of Seperation of Church and State has reared its ugly head once again.

My view here is, if you are against Seperation of Church and State, then you must be for Religious government

I.E. Basing laws and policy using Religious texts.

While some things are more obvious and common sense, such as making murder illegal, other things such as making other religions illegal, teaching only creationism in schools etc... would be against the seperation of church and state.

Is this something you advocate?

 

[Slartibartfast]

My view is that the wording of the first amendment is pretty clear cut and obvious on this one. Making no law means that goverment stays out of religious affairs. Ideally the way it should work is that a citizen uses their religious belief (or lack thereof) to inform them on morality. They than use that morality as part of their perspective on government and civil society. As Jefferson puts it, there is a wall of separation. They only indirectly interact through the filter of each citizen's mind and beliefs.

As a practical matter, government and religion directly mixing ends with the corruption of both as we have seen numerous times throughout history.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I advocate religious government, I just don't advocate the same religion that 90% of the nation follows.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

No, exactly the opposite.

I want the "religious test" bit removed from the American canon and replaced with a test that ensures we have sufficiently un-religious people in office.

 

[digsbe]

I advocate religious morals in government, but not a theocracy.

 

[Your Star]

Hell no. When you mix religion, and politics, people's heads start to fly.

 

[Your Star]

I advocate religious morals in government, but not a theocracy.

What's the difference?

 

[digsbe]

What's the difference?

The church doesn't run the state. The government is secular in that there is no denominational affiliation towards anything religious or irreligious (a Christian, Islamic, or atheistic formal state ideology). I think people with religious morals are equal with those who have secular/irreligious morals and should not be denied to have their voices heard through voting because their beliefs stem from their religion. I don't believe in separating religion and politics when it comes to one's personal political philosophy.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What's the difference?

There is a huge difference as it preserves your right to believe as you see fit.

 

[Fiddytree]

Perhaps a government that reflects our certain religious virtues, but not a religious government in of itself.

 

[Your Star]

The church doesn't run the state. The government is secular in that there is no denominational affiliation towards anything religious or irreligious (a Christian, Islamic, or atheistic formal state ideology). I think people with religious morals are equal with those who have secular/irreligious morals and should not be denied to have their voices heard through voting because their beliefs stem from their religion. I don't believe in separating religion and politics when it comes to one's personal political philosophy.

Oh okay. I still believe one should separate their religious beliefs from their politics, because politics affect everyone in the country, and wanting someone to conform to their religious beliefs by mixing the two I think is wrong. Political beliefs should be formed with the thought of how to run the country the best, not with religious thought in mind.
Like me with the abortion issue, I don't like abortion, I would never get one, (unless in rape, or if it could harm me), and this comes from a religious place, but I'm not going to try and ban abortion because of my beliefs. It would be silly for someone to have to follow that personal belief of mine, especially if they didn't follow the same religion as me.

 

[Vincent]

The debate of Seperation of Church and State has reared its ugly head once again.

My view here is, if you are against Seperation of Church and State, then you must be for Religious government

I.E. Basing laws and policy using Religious texts.

While some things are more obvious and common sense, such as making murder illegal, other things such as making other religions illegal, teaching only creationism in schools etc... would be against the seperation of church and state.

Is this something you advocate?

Why are you trying to pick an argument? What is currently looked at as 'seperation of church and state' goes so insanely far as to declare that teaching students that evolution is a hypothesis and not a fact is religious teaching. There was a ruling in Georgia that declared just that.

 

[Your Star]

Why are you trying to pick an argument? What is currently looked at as 'seperation of church and state' goes so insanely far as to declare that teaching students that evolution is a hypothesis and not a fact is religious teaching. There was a ruling in Georgia that declared just that.

Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis.

 

[Vincent]

Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis.

Either way, it's still not scientifically proven at all, and letting students know that isn't teaching them religion in the least. But doing so was declared a violation of church and state. Tell me that isn't insanity.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Oh okay. I still believe one should separate their religious beliefs from their politics, because politics affect everyone in the country, and wanting someone to conform to their religious beliefs by mixing the two I think is wrong. Political beliefs should be formed with the thought of how to run the country the best, not with religious thought in mind.

Some ways yes, some ways no. If your religious belief is that you should force everyone to worship as you do, obviously that should be kept away from your politics as it violates other political principals that Americans tend to hold as valuable. If your religious belief is that murder is wrong, than its perfectly acceptable to try and apply that to politics.

 

[Your Star]

Either way, it's still not scientifically proven at all, and letting students know that isn't teaching them religion in the least. But doing so was declared a violation of church and state. Tell me that isn't insanity.

Well if the teacher is doing their job they shouldn't have to tell them that, it should be self evident. The student should know the difference between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law by the time they get to evolution.

 

[digsbe]

Oh okay. I still believe one should separate their religious beliefs from their politics, because politics affect everyone in the country, and wanting someone to conform to their religious beliefs by mixing the two I think is wrong. Political beliefs should be formed with the thought of how to run the country the best, not with religious thought in mind.
Like me with the abortion issue, I don't like abortion, I would never get one, (unless in rape, or if it could harm me), and this comes from a religious place, but I'm not going to try and ban abortion because of my beliefs. It would be silly for someone to have to follow that personal belief of mine, especially if they didn't follow the same religion as me.

I guess this is where our philosophies clash a bit. I'll use abortion as an example for my beliefs as well. I believe that abortion is murder because of my religious faith. Because I personally believe it's murder, I do not support the right to anyone practicing legalized murder. This is why I am against abortion as a right for anyone. I have my religious beliefs and because I hold them to be true and the best belief out there, I want to see that manifested through our laws just like anyone else.

 

[Vincent]

Also, if we have 'seperation of church and state' why does Congress take time off for Christmas, a religious holiday? And why does Congress open with prayer?

 

[Fiddytree]

Some ways yes, some ways no. If your religious belief is that you should force everyone to worship as you do, obviously that should be kept away from your politics as it violates other political principals that Americans tend to hold as valuable. If your religious belief is that murder is wrong, than its perfectly acceptable to try and apply that to politics.

I also think that politics has to be at the very least somewhat complimentary to the public's moral sense, otherwise it can create a serious division between the public and its leaders.

 

[Your Star]

Some ways yes, some ways no. If your religious belief is that you should force everyone to worship as you do, obviously that should be kept away from your politics as it violates other political principals that Americans tend to hold as valuable. If your religious belief is that murder is wrong, than its perfectly acceptable to try and apply that to politics.

No I don't think so. Because where do you draw the line, on what is acceptable to mix, and what isn't? Laws shouldn't have a religious belief behind them, it should be what is in the best interest to the state, and to the people that live in said state. Now obviously there are more than religious reasons to be against murder, and the state, and the people have an interest to make murdering people illegal. Also the state has to define murder, because all killing isn't illegal, ex the death penalty.

 

[Boo Radley]

I advocate religious morals in government, but not a theocracy.

Whose religion and whose morals?

 

[Your Star]

I guess this is where our philosophies clash a bit. I'll use abortion as an example for my beliefs as well. I believe that abortion is murder because of my religious faith. Because I personally believe it's murder, I do not support the right to anyone practicing legalized murder. This is why I am against abortion as a right for anyone. I have my religious beliefs and because I hold them to be true and the best belief out there, I want to see that manifested through our laws just like anyone else.

See thats a personal belief, and not everyone subscribes to that belief. So I think it's unfair for someone to have to follow that belief, even if the majority of it of the population believes it. I'm not going to tell someone their belief isn't as valid as mine, and on the abortion issue, if someone wants to get an abortion, they are going to get it, whether it's illegal or not. Banning abortion would only lead to the deaths of women, and I look at it like that, which is why I support it, instead of just being ambivalent to it.
Another example would be that muslims think that it is wrong to drink alcohol, so do you think it would be okay for muslims to ban alcohol, because of their religious belief is pushing them to make that public policy, even if you don't subscribe to their religious belief?

 

[The_Patriot]

No, exactly the opposite.

I want the "religious test" bit removed from the American canon and replaced with a test that ensures we have sufficiently un-religious people in office.

Removing the religious test text would do the opposite of what you want. The Constitution clearly makes it known that no religious test is needed to serve in the government. I give you Article VI Clause III.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Removing the religious test text would do the opposite of what you want. The Constitution clearly makes it known that no religious test is needed to serve in the government. I give you Article VI Clause III.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I think I interpret the phrase differently.

I want a test. It's just that my test would be designed to weed out people of improper religious faith.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No I don't think so. Because where do you draw the line, on what is acceptable to mix, and what isn't? Laws shouldn't have a religious belief behind them, it should be what is in the best interest to the state, and to the people that live in said state. Now obviously there are more than religious reasons to be against murder, and the state, and the people have an interest to make murdering people illegal. Also the state has to define murder, because all killing isn't illegal, ex the death penalty.

The process of drawing that line is at least partially what politics is all about. It will always be fuzzy as we all have our own take on it. I personally think that is a good thing as life never has hard and fast rules.