Why is a State Religion a bad idea ?

[Foxfyre]

True, except in matters of fundamental right. When fundamental rights are concerned (life, liberty, right to vote, due process of law, etc.), the will of the majority will not be allowed to compromise the rights of the minority....

Very true George, except in the case of a state...recognized religion, unless there is something in that state's constitution that says they can't use state funds for other than the recognized entities...it would NOT violate anyone's rights!

A state recognizing the cardinal as the state bird, is that discrimination against the turkey?

People seem to confuse perceived discrimination with INSTITUTIONALIZED discrimination. One of the biggest problems we have in this country today is that every jackwagon with an axe to grind can claim the PERCEPTION of discrimination and force a minority view on the majority. It's completely antithetical to everything this country was founded on!

It's like the claim that religion corrupts government and therefore we MUST have freedom FROM religion. Can it happen...maybe. However, if you read ANYTHING by the founders, you know the 1st Amendment was to protect the church...freedom OF religion...from the state. NOT the other way around.

Read the Federalist Papers folks. OR the writings of just about any of the founders on the subject!

Exactly right. The First Amendment, however, was not so much to protect religion as to protect the unalienable right of the individual to be as religious or not in whatever way he or she chose to be. That of course extended to allow him/her to organize and openly celebrate whatever religious denomination or tradition in which he or she chose to participate.

That allowed some of the colonies to establish their own little state religions which were just as authoritarian and oppressive as were the state religions of Catholic Europe or the Church of England. The difference in America, however, was that under the dignity of freedom, those mini state religions soon began to feel wrong to just about everybody. And within a decade of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, all had dissolved and were never re-created.

The Founders were determined that neither the Church nor the government, and certainly not the two operating in tandem as was the case in 18th century Europe, would take precedent over the unalienable rights of the individual. Neither would be given power to reward or punish anyone for what he or she did or did not believe.

 

[Katzndogz]

Sweden has a state religion as does Israel. A state religion by itself doesn't mean anything. It becomes important when not belonging to the state religion also becomes treason as in Saudi Arabia.

The founders of this country didn't want a national state religion for just that reason. They also believed that each individual state could have a "state" religion if it wanted to.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sweden has a state religion as does Israel. A state religion by itself doesn't mean anything. It becomes important when not belonging to the state religion also becomes treason as in Saudi Arabia.

The founders of this country didn't want a national state religion for just that reason. They also believed that each individual state could have a "state" religion if it wanted to.

Sweden did have a state church--The Church of Sweden--but ended an official state church/religion I think in 2000? (Working from memory here.)

Israel actually has no official state religion and, while not constitutionally recognizing freedom of religion as the case in the USA, does allow freedom of religion to all so long as such religious practices do not interefer with other civil rights of the people or other interests of the country

The most oppressive state religions these days exist mostly in predominantly Muslim countries where other religions may be allowed to exist but only if they stay out of sight and do not attempt to proselyte in any way.

 

[Intense]

I am not interested in having any form of religion forced upon me or to live in a nation that has a religious preference. I want religion to keep to itself and I will also.

Agree, by gov't

but it is the forcing or as Locke
said about the social contract

government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....​

But if one feels that gov't can force other things
what is the "litmus" test for that thing?

But if one feels that gov't can force other things
what is the "litmus" test for that thing?

Cause, the consent of the governed, and due process.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ultra orthodox Jews of Israel are growing in tremendous numbers and will change that country's history and future.

Sweden has a state religion as does Israel. A state religion by itself doesn't mean anything. It becomes important when not belonging to the state religion also becomes treason as in Saudi Arabia.

The founders of this country didn't want a national state religion for just that reason. They also believed that each individual state could have a "state" religion if it wanted to.

Sweden did have a state church--The Church of Sweden--but ended an official state church/religion I think in 2000? (Working from memory here.)

Israel actually has no official state religion and, while not constitutionally recognizing freedom of religion as the case in the USA, does allow freedom of religion to all so long as such religious practices do not interefer with other civil rights of the people or other interests of the country

The most oppressive state religions these days exist mostly in predominantly Muslim countries where other religions may be allowed to exist but only if they stay out of sight and do not attempt to proselyte in any way.

 

[Intense]

Sweden has a state religion as does Israel. A state religion by itself doesn't mean anything. It becomes important when not belonging to the state religion also becomes treason as in Saudi Arabia.

The founders of this country didn't want a national state religion for just that reason. They also believed that each individual state could have a "state" religion if it wanted to.

Yep. Like Mary-Land. We did grow past that though. Locke was way ahead of his time, like Christ.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not interested in having any form of religion forced upon me or to live in a nation that has a religious preference. I want religion to keep to itself and I will also.

Agree, by gov't

but it is the forcing or as Locke
said about the social contract

government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....​

But if one feels that gov't can force other things
what is the "litmus" test for that thing?

But if one feels that gov't can force other things
what is the "litmus" test for that thing?

Cause, the consent of the governed, and due process.

But we give up our consent and our freedoms not whole cloth but inch by inch.

If government can schedule us for an IRS audit or set up a website where people can report those who say things critical of the President or government; if the President regularly denounces those expressing politically incorrect speech and a segment of society routinely organizes to denounce and punish those who hold socially 'unacceptable' views, how long will it be before religion gets caught up into all that? Most especially when we have an increasingly politicized media who uses its influence to promote 'control' of speech, political and religious expression?

The Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they included freedom of speech, the press, and religion in the First Amendment because they knew they were all interrelated.

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

.

 

[Intense]

Simple – giving the government the keys to claim whatever they want is moral and whatever they want is immoral is simply crazy. It essentially allows the government to do anything it pleases and then justify it. It is the reason that theocracies tend to be so bloody: it is all justified as they see it.

I agree.

But the gov't claims now what is moral and immoral, does it not?
Quite frankly, the gov't can do anything it wants and justify it, already.

Do you feel that it is too much power to give the gov't over an individual?

The Government can try to abandon reason and do what it wants, but it doesn't always work out for it. Thank God for that. When we learn to distinguish moral truths and lessons, no matter where they are learned, from Dogma, we fair better. One of Government's big repeated mistakes, is it forgets that it is just a steward, not the ultimate authority. Power kills? Maybe, maybe not. Arrogance sure does though.

 

[Katzndogz]

Sweden has a state religion as does Israel. A state religion by itself doesn't mean anything. It becomes important when not belonging to the state religion also becomes treason as in Saudi Arabia.

The founders of this country didn't want a national state religion for just that reason. They also believed that each individual state could have a "state" religion if it wanted to.

Sweden did have a state church--The Church of Sweden--but ended an official state church/religion I think in 2000? (Working from memory here.)

Israel actually has no official state religion and, while not constitutionally recognizing freedom of religion as the case in the USA, does allow freedom of religion to all so long as such religious practices do not interefer with other civil rights of the people or other interests of the country

The most oppressive state religions these days exist mostly in predominantly Muslim countries where other religions may be allowed to exist but only if they stay out of sight and do not attempt to proselyte in any way.

I think it was and still is Lutheran in Sweden.

 

[Intense]

Agree, by gov't

but it is the forcing or as Locke
said about the social contract

government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....​

But if one feels that gov't can force other things
what is the "litmus" test for that thing?

But if one feels that gov't can force other things
what is the "litmus" test for that thing?

Cause, the consent of the governed, and due process.

But we give up our consent and our freedoms not whole cloth but inch by inch.

If government can schedule us for an IRS audit or set up a website where people can report those who say things critical of the President or government; if the President regularly denounces those expressing politically incorrect speech and a segment of society routinely organizes to denounce and punish those who hold socially 'unacceptable' views, how long will it be before religion gets caught up into all that? Most especially when we have an increasingly politicized media who uses its influence to promote 'control' of speech, political and religious expression?

The Founders knew exactly what they were doing when they included freedom of speech, the press, and religion in the First Amendment because they knew they were all interrelated.

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

.

It's still a two way street, so there is hope.

 

[JDzBrain]

Sweden has a state religion as does Israel. A state religion by itself doesn't mean anything. It becomes important when not belonging to the state religion also becomes treason as in Saudi Arabia.

The founders of this country didn't want a national state religion for just that reason. They also believed that each individual state could have a "state" religion if it wanted to.

Sweden did have a state church--The Church of Sweden--but ended an official state church/religion I think in 2000? (Working from memory here.)

Israel actually has no official state religion and, while not constitutionally recognizing freedom of religion as the case in the USA, does allow freedom of religion to all so long as such religious practices do not interefer with other civil rights of the people or other interests of the country

The most oppressive state religions these days exist mostly in predominantly Muslim countries where other religions may be allowed to exist but only if they stay out of sight and do not attempt to proselyte in any way.

VERY true guys. And there are literally DOZENS of countries across the world that either have state religions from Christianity to Buddhism to Islam written right into their constitutions or have laws RESPECTING those religions as OFFICIAL.

And yet we almost NEVER hear of civil unrest because those countries are oppressing other religious groups...EXCEPT in certain sects of Islamic Theocracies!

The founder's point was to protect individual religious freedom from the state, that's the big state, by denying the state the ability ESTABLISH religion. NOT in the respecting of religion.

Not only did the founders respect religion, but until the 70's our NATIONAL government actually PRINTED AN OFFICIAL BIBLE!

That's right, there was an official state bible. The practice started with authorization and funding for the printing of the first bibles printed in America by the 1st Continental Congress in 1782. And it continued up until the late 70's.

Ya know what, in all that time, I don't seem to remember cries or oppression or repression of the religious documents of other religions...do you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What about how the Baptists of Connecticut felt (look up Thomas Jefferson), or what other religious peoples did to the Mormons in Missouri and Illinois.

State religions and governments feed on each other and lead to corruption

 

[JDzBrain]

What about how the Baptists of Connecticut felt (look up Thomas Jefferson), or what other religious peoples did to the Mormons in Missouri and Illinois.

State religions and governments feed on each other and lead to corruption

Ah...yes. The infamous "wall of separation" letter that has led generations of misguided liberals to make the nonsensical separation of church and state claim. The PERFECT example of what I was saying about the PERCEPTION of discrimination and INSTITUTIONALIZED discrimination.

The Danbury Baptists were worried that the religious majority MIGHT "reproach their chief Magistrate..." and wrote then president Jefferson saying so.

Of course, it never happened!

There never was any discrimination because of it. And if you read Jefferson's letter to them, understanding the language of the day and in the context of of being an answer to the letter they sent him...HE didn't see the problem either!

As far as treatment of Mormons. Religious freedom does NOT give asylum from law!

The majority of Mormons troubles in early America stems from running afoul of state's laws and social mores more than religious persecution simply because they were Mormons.

Muslims can't legally marry more that one wife in America and reciting "I divorce thee!" 3 times is NOT a legal form of divorce for them in the US either. And BOTH are fundamental religious precepts!

Actually both of those things might come closer to being described as institutionalized discrimination than a state recognizing an official religion with no mechanism of enforcement. ;~)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ah, yes. Ah, the imperfect answer to a misperception that does not exist of institutionalized discrimination.

Madison understood it best: that the separation makes religions compete with each other, leading to the nation with the freest interaction of religion in the world.

I encourage all to study the Danbury Baptists and the Latter Day Saints and their histories.

 

[MHunterB]

Sweden has a state religion as does Israel. A state religion by itself doesn't mean anything. It becomes important when not belonging to the state religion also becomes treason as in Saudi Arabia.

The founders of this country didn't want a national state religion for just that reason. They also believed that each individual state could have a "state" religion if it wanted to.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to see some documentation of the statement in bold, if possible?

I can't find anything specific to state it is incorrect, but that just does not seem 'right' to me. I recall that the Commonwealth of MA had a law on its books imposing the death penalty on any Friend (= 'Quaker') who set foot on Commonwealth soil, up until about 1700. It also seems to me that our dear 'Pilgrim' ancestors weren't the only ones with a 'religious tolerance' issue.

So the idea of our FF being willing to accept an 'official' religion being declared within ANY state or commonwealth in the union seems very unlikely to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The FF were quite willing to not interfere with the 8 or 9 states that had state-established religions supported with taxpayer money, but were willing to make sure a national government could not impose a national-established religion on the various states.

 

[Katzndogz]

Sweden has a state religion as does Israel. A state religion by itself doesn't mean anything. It becomes important when not belonging to the state religion also becomes treason as in Saudi Arabia.

The founders of this country didn't want a national state religion for just that reason. They also believed that each individual state could have a "state" religion if it wanted to.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to see some documentation of the statement in bold, if possible?

I can't find anything specific to state it is incorrect, but that just does not seem 'right' to me. I recall that the Commonwealth of MA had a law on its books imposing the death penalty on any Friend (= 'Quaker') who set foot on Commonwealth soil, up until about 1700. It also seems to me that our dear 'Pilgrim' ancestors weren't the only ones with a 'religious tolerance' issue.

So the idea of our FF being willing to accept an 'official' religion being declared within ANY state or commonwealth in the union seems very unlikely to me.

The letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists was an assurance that the federal government would not interfere with religion at all, even to the point of establishing a state religion in that state. That was a matter of state's rights.

The meaning of the letter has been corrupted and misinterpreted but that's what it really meant. It's why Utah was able to come into the Union as a state with a state religion.

People of other religions that settled in states that had an official state religion had their rights protected by the Free Exercise clause so that it was not ever to be illegal to worship differently.

 

[Avatar4321]

The letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists was an assurance that the federal government would not interfere with religion at all, even to the point of establishing a state religion in that state. That was a matter of state's rights.

The meaning of the letter has been corrupted and misinterpreted but that's what it really meant. It's why Utah was able to come into the Union as a state with a state religion.

People of other religions that settled in states that had an official state religion had their rights protected by the Free Exercise clause so that it was not ever to be illegal to worship differently.

Utah has never had a State Religion. Religious freedom has been guananteed there since it became a territory.

I would also point out that the Free exercise clause, like the establishment clause, only applied to the Federal Government.