This is mainly about the discussion about the separation clause, in the United States Constitution. There are a lot of people who says it doesn't exist well here are two sites to back up my claim.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/tnpidx.htm
and
http://www.webring.org/hub?ring=churchstate;id=41;ac=MufU%40%B0%A0%91%83%F8%F9%E7%91%94xoZ%03gx%0B%10%E9%F1%C7%C3%B3%E1%AA%9F%95%7CtN%17%2B8%0BZ%FA%F0%C3%DF%A4%BC%AA%C2%95b%7FOAf%3F%12%18%E8;go

So now where do you come in? Simple post your thoughts, your thoughts on the existence of it before and after reading the sites. Also if you still don't think it exists tell why.


Also if this is in the wrong sub-forum it may be moved,and I apologize in advanced if it is.

Of course it exists. I've gone over this before here, with the famous Jefferson quotation, and I doubt it does any good. Facts have precious little bearing on anything these days.

any one with a clue knows church and state were suposed to remain seperate

This is another tough issue to deal with. I believe that statistically the majority of the US identifies themselves as Christian in some form or another. The problem I have is when 1 atheist parent complains about a team saying a prayer before a football game or some similar situation. I understand that that one student (or 5 students) on the team either don't believe in God or believe in some other manifestation of God but why does their non-belief predicate that no one can express their belief?

I actually agree with things like removing religious representations on government buildings etc. Having a cross or the 10 commandments while ignoring all other religions is wrong. Part of the appeal of the United States when it was formed was that you were FREE to be whatever religion you wanted to be.

I feel like I have more to say on this topic but my kids are craving my attention so I'm sure I'll be back here later

geeogree :
I think with the team prayer thing is the fact that it excludes those who dont believe in god. I couldnt really fault it if they were all religious, but in school they are supposed to be inclusive. That one is a kind of grey area. Because they do have a right to pray.

I think a more difficult debate is about christmas, whether the state should use or allow public land to have religious displays on it.
That actually dosent bother me at all, and tbh it seems more tradition than anything now, but again that is a murky area. technically they should allow equal access to those areas if jews, muslims, or atheists want to put up banners too.

There was a pretty funny article i read where some city, or state, did a lottery of displays, and almost all of them were won by atheists, 1 by a jewish group, and 3 by christians. I found it amusing because the atheist spokesman said god had blessed them with exceptional luck.

I found it less funny that the displays mostly just attacked christmas or else just left the display empty, wasting the area.
And some displays were interesting sculptures which werent actually offensive, but people kept knicking or breaking them because they supported the idea of evolution or secularism.

Basically people got all riled up over where the line was, and started being absolute d***'s to each other.
I dont know what article it was but heres another one, which I acctually think was written by an idiot but there you go.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/11/28/ok-atheists-you-win-the-war-on-christmas-now-move-aside-so-we-can-put-up-another-nativity-scene/

So long as its representative of the people that put it up, isnt hatefull and isnt actually being pushed by the state i dont see a real problem with faith being allowed in certain areas, as long as its inclusive.

Sometimes it is done unfairely, sometimes it is done fairely and people take advantage of it, but you cant stop people being a holes.

It'd be a pretty dull holiday if christmas decorations were banned from public property because some people dont want to see it. Equally they can complain they dont want there tax being used to pay for it. A middle ground would be good.


Religion shouldnt be a factor in laws and rules, common interest should be what does rules.
But theres no need to censor people wanting to show what they believe.

Oldschool41 : and that is actually what I wish we would do. I would prefer to see more religious symbols than none but to some atheists any religious symbol means a promotion of something they are not a part of.

thenumberone : That's fair and I understand what you're saying but I wonder how many of the students actually care about the prayer and how many of the parents are the ones that are actually doing the complaining. We'll never know but I would be interested. And that was just an example I could think of

I wish more people viewed it like you do. And I actually read something just recently that chastised Christians for being so exclusive during December. It's not just Christians that have a holiday they are celebrating so why is Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings so offensive to Christians? I think we all need to chill out when it comes to religion and politics. The government isn't giving millions to one religion and then taxing another in some sort of evil agenda.

Chanku : Indeed there is suppose to be a separation between church and state but more and more it seems like the lines are getting blurred. I believe in God but I also believe that a politician shouldn’t base every decision on his or her religious beliefs. It really is a delicate balancing act when you get right down to it. I just wish that as a society we will get to a point where there is less judgment, less hypocrisy and, more peace. Peace is something we all can and should be able to enjoy. At least that’s my opinion.

Separation of church and state is no where in our Constitution.  The sites you posted only cite excerpts and do not take into account the Constitution as a whole nor the intents of our Founding Fathers.

In every statement concerning religion and politics in the Constitution it is ALWAYS the "state" which is limited and not the excercise of religion within the state.  Even Thomas Jefferson (who cited the only existing source for the phrase "separation of church and state") explained that his phrase was meant to mean that the state has no right or authority over the church but rather that the church as a system of the people has power over the state.

The state is a series of elected individuals who according to the Constitution are NOT supposed to vote according to their desires but according to the desires of those they are elected to represent.  Modern day politicians violate that as they vote their way instead of for what those they represent actually want.

A religion is comprised of the people elected officials are supposed to obey.

It is impossible to separate church and state.  Even atheism is a religion of non-religion.  A religious group is simply a group which agrees upon a specified religious precept or precepts.  Atheists agree upon a religious precept of there being no god whatsoever and in doing so are part of a non-god religion.

It doesn't matter if you are a Christian, atheist, mormon, muslim, catholic, pagan, satanist, etcetera the elected officials MUST vote the way that the majority of those they represent demand.  Unfortunately, politicians refuse to do this and instead tell us we have to let them pass laws before they will tell us what those laws are or in the case of Nancy Pelosi...they will pass any law they like no matter what we want and we will learn to like it.

Separation of Church and state was meant to protect the people's religious freedoms from the state.  The state doesn't need protection from the people because the state was meant to be slave to the people and the church IS the people.  The church is as much the people as Hannah Montana fans are (God save us all).

jasonkelli :

The church is one aspect of the people, but as the usa was founded with the idea that government wouldn't interfere, then actively endorsing a religion or religious principals is wrong. Every one is free to express there beliefs but all government is mean to do, is govern, not tell you what to believe or what to do with your life. Obviously there's nothing wrong with people in office having or expressing faith, but as its absolutely unnecessary to the running of the country there's no reason for government to actively endorse it, that would be misuse of funds.
And the idea that everyone is religious requires those who express no faith to be labeled as religious, lack of belief dosent entail belief. Thinking something is inccorrect dosent make it a religion. And thats ignoring agnostics who are just on the fence.

geeogree :

I was listening to music and for reasons unknow this popped up at the side in featured videos, i thought this was a perfectly fair use of land, everyone gets a shot.

And no one fighting over it to boot. What an awesome town
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtIyYEPVgTk

thenumberone : I don't think you are getting this.  The church is not Christians.  It is the people, all the people.  To say that the "church" should have no say in government is to say that no one should.  Atheists are the church, mormons are the church, satanists are the church, etcetera.  The whole point of the phrase "separation of church and state" was to say that the state has no power over the religious aspects of the PEOPLE (atheist, christian, mormon, catholic, etcetera) but all church (satanists, pagans, atheists, etcetera) have authority over the state.

It is impossible to separate the two.

Obama has said that he favors the right of a mother to request her baby be "aborted" after it is fully born even if it is fully healthy.  There is no way to make a political decision on that without applying your moral beliefs.  When you apply your moral beliefs you are applying something that is based on your religious views of what is morally acceptable or not.  Those who agree with Obama are saying it is morally acceptable to kill a fully born baby if mommy doesn't want it.  Those who disagree are saying it is murder.  Either way you are making a decision based on your morals and morals stem from your religious views.  Hence, it is impossible to keep your religion out of your decisions because every decision you make in politics is based off what you feel is morally right or wrong.  The point of "separation of church and state" is that the state has no authority to force you to believe any certain thing or to force your religion into anything it is against.

There is no way, unfortunately, to completely separate church and state. Religion is such a personal, deeply-held, ingrained part of a person that it can never be fully routed out. A person who swears up and down that he or she is an Atheist might find himself praying in an emergency-not out of actual belief, but because when all else fails...

That being said, I have to state quite firmly that I believe that the government needs to stay out of people's private lives as much as possible. Purely moral decisions should be made by the people involved. 

Choosing a less-high-flame issue than abortion as an example...

Polygamy. So people want to marry in groups. If  they're happy and every member of the group made their own choice, why is the government involved? Sure, we want to make sure that every person in that group is actually there of their own free will-get rid of the cults, end the child marriages. But without the pressure of keeping it a secret and being underground, some of that would disappear anyway. If a group of four people would like to marry and raise healthy, active children, why does the government have laws against it? Is this not a religious idea? That marriage should be between one man and one woman is definitely a religious theme. 

Would I do it? No way. I'm way too jealous for that kind of thing.

But should the government have the right to say that they can't, because someone's religion says it's bad?

jasonkelli :
I dont think you get it, i dont want the church to have anything to do with my life, and neither do many americans, even many christian americans.

Its not impossible, youre just opposed to it.

Morality isnt religion, its what you regard as right and wrong based on your principals, and nurtured by the actions of others around you, and your observations.
I think aborting a fully formed baby is wrong, i also think in the early stages its the mothers choice.

The problem i could see with changing the number of partners is even more abuse of tax reliefs and exemptions etc, other than that i wouldnt much care myself, its there choice.

thenumberone: honestly, you are not getting it...lol  You are the church.  Yes, you are an atheist.  However, "church" was a generic term referring to any religion and as much as you may want to deny it, atheism is a religion.  It is a religion in which its adherents agree on a religious view that there is no god.  A higher deity is not necessary to exist in a religious theology only a precept of who is/isn't such and an identification of how moral standards should be established.  Atheism meets those criteria.

Therefore, you are the church just as much as anyone else.  If religion and government are to be separate than you should have no say in politics, should never be permitted to vote in any election, nor should you be allowed to hold any government position.

Thing is, everyone's beliefs are based on their moral standards and their moral standards are always based on their religious views (whether atheist or satanist or any other religion).

Separation of "religion" and "government" was meant to protect the people from a meddling government not to permit the government absolute control over the people.  Don't agree?  Pick up a book and read what Thomas Jefferson (the author of the phrase) said it meant.  If you don't agree with his belief then feel free to oppose.  However, don't spread lies by claiming it means something that its own author said it did NOT mean.

thenumberone :

What I mean when I say it's impossible to separate them is that no matter how rational, even-handed and detached you are, religion  isn't something you can just set aside or choose not to let influence your decisions. Purely by the basis of how deeply ingrained in a person it is, it will colour your decisions and outlook even if you don't think it does.

I'm borderline atheist (I waver, sometimes, and I don't really know where I stand and please, don't take that as an opportunity to try to convert me, ok? Thank you...) but even I find myself occasionally looking up and going, "Hey, God, if you're listening, by any chance..." Just because there's a part of me, no matter how 'rational and scientific the rest of my brain thinks it is, that clings to the belief in a higher power. And even me, open minded liberal...other stuff me finds myself almost automatically reacting according to the religion I was taught as a child. Unless I catch myself thinking like that and force myself to rationally re-look at situations, sometimes it creeps out in the weirdest ways and places. Just the other day someone told me that she was a Wiccan and I automatically thought, "Ugh" and then stopped to consider why I had that reaction...and it was because I was taught that people like that are bad.

I agree with you partially on the morality issue, but the caveat is this: Religion, no matter how right,  wrong, misguided or well-meant, often serves as a morality compass for people who can't or won't find their own inner core. Most religions hold themselves as the "Keeper of Morality" and stoutly maintain that what they believe is right is The Right and what they believe is wrong is The Wrong...so where do we draw the line between 'our morals', 'religious morals' and 'state morals'?

For that matter, where did you get the impression that murder is wrong? (Again, for the record, I believe it is!) Animals 'murder' each other all the time. We 'Murder' criminals who've done very bad things. So sometimes it's ok? You don't have to answer that, but do think about it...

thudricdholee :
I haven't a grain of interest in converting you.

And if you dont have an inbuilt idea of right and wrong id say you arent a moral person, your just doing what your told.

Rule 1: Empathy. To declare one thing and do another is hypocrasy. Its like moaning about government when you didnt vote. Act how you would want to be treated. I wouldnt want to be killed. Imagining that I can see how that would make other people feel.
It dosent serve any real usefull purpose either, its a senesless act. A society needs trust and co operation to function. If you live by empathy you can see how much damage certain actions can cause.
And then being raised, i was shown helping people = good,violence = bad, so ingrained.
God never told me this, nor did church, iv been in a church about 6 times in my life, and i honestly hated it.
If people were empathetic society would be like a mix of back to the future and demolition man.
But people say one thing and do another.
Hypocrosy is one of mans greatest flaws.

Edit-re.jason
Well we have reached an impass, I believe you are wrong(i guess thats another religion then), and since your argument hinges on atheism somehow being a religion i have nothing else to add than iv already stated, nor do you I would assume.

I don't agree with the way its used. The actual language of the Constitution is that basically the government can't set up a law establishing a state religion like what you see now in the middle east and back in medieval times. There is nothing in there that suggests a religious person can't hold an office. Not being able to pray in schools or having a Bible study group. There's nothing that suggests certain architecture or landmarks have to be taken down for being "offensive". This clause has been used too much on freedom from religion without enough emphasis on freedom of religion. So, more and more outward displays of religion are growing more and more unacceptable. The sad thing is, is that the founders were religious and may not have wanted a state enforced religion, but still wanted people to worship as freely as possible.  

jasonkelli : I agree that there is nothing saying a person with a strong faith in their religion can't hold office. However, times have changed in the fact that we are a nation of many different religions. The concept that I support is to not have a nation run itself in a way that makes it a "Christian Nation", "Jewish Nation", "Atheistic Nation", etc. The problem I see is how there are times where our elected officials make decisions not based on what is fair for everyone, promotes acceptance for everyone, or gives people the choices they deserve. Instead, they make their votes based on their religious beliefs. Doing so is pushing their personal religious beliefs on the rest of the country who may not even be of the same religion. I don't want to bring this up, but it is a good example. I just hope this doesn't turn into a debate about this example. But gay marriage is a prime example of elected officials pushing religious beliefs on everyone else. There is absolutely no legitimate reason as far as the state should be concerned to justify not legalizing gay marriage. It hurts nobody. Heck, it doesn't even affect anyone else who isn't involved. But pretty much every politician in power who votes this down does so because they think it is wrong on a religious level. That is just one example of pushing religious beliefs on everyone else. 

Now, it is true that our founding fathers were religious people and even prayed and swore to the Bible during their meetings. But that isn't the problem. There is a reason why the founding fathers came here; to escape religious prosecution from the King. Everyone has the right to worship (or not) however they wish and have the right to the pursuit of happiness. But when politicians vote for or against something that effects us all based on what their religion says about the issue, they are doing the opposite of what our nation was founded upon in the first place, which is to not be dictated by the religion of those in power. 

Is separation of church and state used wrong by many? Yes. Can people of religion hold power? Absolutely. But when they make a decision that we all must deal with, they need to be able to know if their decision is based on what their religion tells them or what the people who elected them to be a representative collectively want. That is democracy. Making decisions based on what their personal religion is a step towards Theocracy. 

Limiting how any religion is displayed in the states is not trying to suppress religious practice. It is an attempt to not imply that the state/country leans towards any particular religion. That way, we don't have Jewish people living in a Christian Nation, Christians living in an Islamic Nation, any religious person living in an Atheistic Nation, etc.

You are right that everyone is the church, so it is impossible to separate them when you look at it that way. but they way we need to look at it is a separation of ANY specific religion and state so we aren't pushing any specific religious view on everyone.