God And Politics, How far do we take Seperation of Church and State?

[Bonnie]

www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20040625.shtml

Partisan media stalwart Helen Thomas is just the latest in a long line of commentators to argue that religion and politics don't mix. Like the others, she is woefully misguided.
Kerry himself said,"I am not a spokeperson for the church, and the church is not a spokesperson for the Unites States of America. I'm running for president, and I'm running to uphold the Constitution, which has a strict seperation of church and state."
The idea that Kerry is running to uphold the Constitution is...well interesting. I guess it depends on what your idea of the Constitution is. But it is amazing that liberals like Kerry cling to this superficial notion that our religious liberties are dependent on a radical seperation of church and state.
Even if the First Amendment mandated a strict seperation of churhc and state--as opposed to prohibiting the establishment of a national church--it is difficult to see how a reasonable person could interpret the seperation principal as requiring office holders not to infuse their governace with their worldview.
Indeed it's hard to imagine how anyone with the slightest grip on reality could believe that any human being, politician or not, could seperate who he is from what he does. If our religious moorings, or lack therof, don't largely define who we are, then nothing does.
But that't the extreme degree to which irationality has captured the secularist psyche today. the secularist not only advocates extending the seperation principal to the point of smothering religious liberty. he demands that religion--at least christain religion--be privatized (relegated to churches and homes)
Actually it's worse. He sometimes doesn't even want the church to be free to express itself on religious matters if such expressions could be construed to overlap into politics, as they inevitably do, especially on social issues.
Russell Kirk wrote, "Now perhaps it would be very convenient for all of us if the several great divisions of knowledge could be tucked neatly into seprate cells, never to meet. But the world does not work that way. Poltics moves upward into ethics, and ethics ascends to theology. ...There is bond between religious conviction and order in society. I trust none of us shall become political christains; but I hope that we shall not be afraid to infuse Christian faith into politics. A society which denies the heart it's role becomes, in very short order, a heartless society."

 

[nakedemperor]

I agree that one's moral convictions are greatly influenced, if not entirely dictated, by one's religion. Therefore it follows that you can't expect the President to completely ignore his faith in policy-making, in terms of moral rectitude. Many people's critique however, has to do with the assertion that the president has allowed specific dogmas (e.g. 'thou shalt not lie with a man as thou would lie with a woman') to pervade his thoughts on constitutional constructionism. The president, in 2000, sold himself as a "strict constitutional constructionist". That was a load of crap, considering he's supported constitutional amendments to prevent gay marriages, outlaw abortion, criminilization of flag burning, to enshrine victim's rights, to balance to budget, etc. etc. etc. He probably thinks the constitution was written by activist founding fathers Anyway, back to his religion: its the specific reason for his backing gay marriage ban. He doesn't see it as a legal, issue, a children's safety issue, a health issue, none of that-- he just think it "desanctifies marriage". OK, marriage is a secular insitution at the state level, where does "desanctification" find its way into the presidents' rhetoric?

That being said, I think it's important for the president to have good morals. Being a Christian makes it likely for him to have those. So, thumbs up to that.

Many people say that "freedom of religion" is guaranteed but "freedom FROM religion is not". I disagree. I think "freedom of religion" INCLUDES freedom from religion. It means your children shouldn't be forced to say "I pledge allegiance...under God". You are free FROM having to acknowledge God.

 

[Bullypulpit]

While ones philosophical views, be they of religious origin or not, inform and shape the decisions we make each day, it is simply inapproriate to use the bullypulpit (no pun intended) of political office to force those views upon anyone else. The only way to do that is at the point of a gun, and I don't think we're at that point yet.

Politcal doctrine being actively shaped by religious doctrine has no place in a free and pluralistic society, such as the one we enjoy in America. It may be acceptable in a theocracy, but not in the United States. Some of the first European settlers here came to flee religious persecution. It would be an insult to their memory then, to institute a state sanctioned religion and the persecution of other religions that would arise.

 

[dilloduck]

While ones philosophical views, be they of religious origin or not, inform and shape the decisions we make each day, it is simply inapproriate to use the bullypulpit (no pun intended) of political office to force those views upon anyone else. The only way to do that is at the point of a gun, and I don't think we're at that point yet.

Politcal doctrine being actively shaped by religious doctrine has no place in a free and pluralistic society, such as the one we enjoy in America. It may be acceptable in a theocracy, but not in the United States. Some of the first European settlers here came to flee religious persecution. It would be an insult to their memory then, to institute a state sanctioned religion and the persecution of other religions that would arise.

Everyone check your morals at the door before you go into vote !!!

 

[5stringJeff]

It would be an insult to their memory then, to institute a state sanctioned religion and the persecution of other religions that would arise.

No one is talking about instituing a state sanctioned religion. No one is talking about persecuting minority religions (which, BTW, happens to Christians in many other countries). All that people are talking about is treating all religions equally in the eyes of the law.

 

[Bonnie]

Everyone check your morals at the door before you go into vote !!!

Ludicrous Dillo, and they missed the entire point of the post.

 

[dilloduck]

Ludicrous Dillo, and they missed the entire point of the post.

oh well--worth a shot

 

[Bonnie]

While ones philosophical views, be they of religious origin or not, inform and shape the decisions we make each day, it is simply inapproriate to use the bullypulpit (no pun intended) of political office to force those views upon anyone else. The only way to do that is at the point of a gun, and I don't think we're at that point yet.

Politcal doctrine being actively shaped by religious doctrine has no place in a free and pluralistic society, such as the one we enjoy in America. It may be acceptable in a theocracy, but not in the United States. Some of the first European settlers here came to flee religious persecution. It would be an insult to their memory then, to institute a state sanctioned religion and the persecution of other religions that would arise.

So how far do we take it? Do we take all reference to God completely out of the public arena, and just keep it in churches and homes...........Sounds a lot like communism to me!! I think those early American settlers might be turning over in their graves right now at what is going on. Early Americans came here to freely celebrate all religions and to escape the battle going on between Protestants and Catholics in Europe............

 

[dilloduck]

So how far do we take it? Do we take all reference to God completely out of the public arena, and just keep it in churches and homes...........Sounds a lot like communism to me!! I think those early American settlers might be turning over in their graves right now at what is going on. Early Americans came here to freely celebrate all religions and to escape the battle going on between Protestants and Catholics in Europe............

The answer is obvious to me now--people ARE the government so we just need to remove religion from the people so they don't corrupt the government.

 

[Bonnie]

The answer is obvious to me now--people ARE the government so we just need to remove religion from the people so they don't corrupt the government.

What next? I have to remove the rosary beads from my car's rear view mirror because the person behind me might get offended thinking Im shoving my religion down their throats??

 

[dilloduck]

What next? I have to remove the rosary beads from my car's rear view mirror because the person behind me might get offended thinking Im shoving my religion down their throats??

yup--ya gotta hide em---just lie and say you gotta em Mardi Gras--wild drunken "fun" is acceptable !!

 

[shadrack]

This nation was founded on a set of values that took centuries of human experience to develop. Many of those centuries were very religious and very bloody. From the fourth to the eighteenth century in Europe and Colonial America, one form of the church was privileged and dominant. All others were considered dissenters to be hampered or persecuted. It was with this knowledge that our nation's founders conceived Article One of the U.S. Bill of Rights. "Separation of Church and State" is a means of securing the freedom of individuals in their choice, practice, and support of religious or non-religious values. Because of its belief in inarguable absolute truths, religion in the public arena creates a climate where debate from both sides is reduced to a simple "I'm right and you're not". It's divisive to say the least and potentially repressive to those who may have legitimate grievances.

Because of this, everyone should be careful in wishing to encourage a climate of intolerance, religious or non-religious, in the political arena. What they get may be a system that becomes intolerant to their own values as well.

 

[dilloduck]

This nation was founded on a set of values that took centuries of human experience to develop. Many of those centuries were very religious and very bloody. From the fourth to the eighteenth century in Europe and Colonial America, one form of the church was privileged and dominant. All others were considered dissenters to be hampered or persecuted. It was with this knowledge that our nation's founders conceived Article One of the U.S. Bill of Rights. "Separation of Church and State" is a means of securing the freedom of individuals in their choice, practice, and support of religious or non-religious values. Because of its belief in inarguable absolute truths, religion in the public arena creates a climate where debate from both sides is reduced to a simple "I'm right and you're not". It's divisive to say the least and potentially repressive to those who may have legitimate grievances.

Because of this, everyone should be careful in wishing to encourage a climate of intolerance, religious or non-religious, in the political arena. What they get may be a system that becomes intolerant to their own values as well.

The States' responsibilty is to promote nor persecute any religion BUT at the same time protect individual rights to worship. IMHO it is a catch 22 that perhaps the founders failed to foresee. The test of a religions right to have State protection (not sanction) should be SOLEY on it's willingness to tolerate other religions. If they can't pass this test, they should receive no protection of practice. Sooner or later the govt. is going to have to take a stand or face religious civil war.

 

[MissileMan]

The States' responsibilty is to promote nor persecute any religion BUT at the same time protect individual rights to worship. IMHO it is a catch 22 that perhaps the founders failed to foresee. The test of a religions right to have State protection (not sanction) should be SOLEY on it's willingness to tolerate other religions. If they can't pass this test, they should receive no protection of practice. Sooner or later the govt. is going to have to take a stand or face religious civil war.

You can't deny someone's rights because they are intolerant. If that were the case, noone (or damned few) would have any rights. Most people are intolerant of something. It's called Separation of CHURCH and state, not Separation of RELIGION and state. It provides for boundaries between religious leaders and political leaders. Otherwise, you could argue that a Catholic president, for instance, would follow the pope instead of the constitution.

 

[shadrack]

The States' responsibilty is to promote nor persecute any religion BUT at the same time protect individual rights to worship. IMHO it is a catch 22 that perhaps the founders failed to foresee.

Point taken.

The Constitution was never meant to be an ends but a means in securing and protecting liberty. Critics of the Constitution, then and now, have condemned it for not being adequate to govern a people. Defenders of the Constitution, then and now, have saluted its accommodation of liberty to power with the requirements of national domain. That has turned out, over time, to be correct.

The test of a religions right to have State protection (not sanction) should be SOLEY on it's willingness to tolerate other religions. If they can't pass this test, they should receive no protection of practice. Sooner or later the govt. is going to have to take a stand or face religious civil war.

So, in other words, Islam isn't tolerant and we're headed for a Christian, Islam war? Christianity hasn't always been so tolerant.

 

[dilloduck]

Point taken.

The Constitution was never meant to be an ends but a means in securing and protecting liberty. Critics of the Constitution, then and now, have condemned it for not being adequate to govern a people. Defenders of the Constitution, then and now, have saluted its accommodation of liberty to power with the requirements of national domain. That has turned out, over time, to be correct.




So, in other words, Islam isn't tolerant and we're headed for a Christian, Islam war? Christianity hasn't always been so tolerant.

IMHO a distinction should be made between dogma and behavior. When ANY religions' behavior becomes intolerant and oppressive it should be reprimanded by the government. Some will say that it is too much interference by government but a priority has to be established to avoid chaos and I think this is the best place to draw the line for all invovled.
We have to accept the fact that religious dogma clashes and no religion can be given permission to oppress others. disagreement--fine oppression--not
govt is the only authority that can enforce this.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

What next? I have to remove the rosary beads from my car's rear view mirror because the person behind me might get offended thinking Im shoving my religion down their throats??

No of course not. We are concerned with government displays. If you're not acting in the scope of your employment in the government than you are free to express your religion any way want.

Using non-Christian tax dollars to promote Christian values is not a proper use of the money.

 

[007]

That was a load of crap, considering he's supported constitutional amendments to prevent gay marriages, outlaw abortion, criminilization of flag burning, to enshrine victim's rights, to balance to budget, etc. etc. etc.

I hope you're not ADVOCATING BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG. Because if you burn one in front of anyone like me, you're going to be wearing your ass for a hat.

That flag deserves more respect than your sissie little faggot ass will EVER command. The BLOOD of GENERATIONS of soilders is IN THAT FLAG, and everytime one is burned, their blood is being desecrated. If that's all the more respect you have for our NATIONS SYMBOL, then GET THE FUCK OTTA HERE!

 

[MJDuncan1982]

First of this love it or leave crap is just that...crap. We don't tell people to leave this country because they disagree with a point of view.

Second I would never burn the flag myself but I believe that allowing us the ability to is the best way we can validate all of the blood of those generations that has been spilled.

They died for freedom and the principles in the Constitution and the biggest show of one's commitment to those principles is to say that we will not BAN even burning the object that represents those principles.

 

[acludem]

I do believe religion has its place in politics. The place is with each individual participant. I am sure both George W. Bush and John Kerry are guided by their religious principles. The difference is that one want to guide the entire country by his religious principles in lieu of the individual's, the other chooses to keep his religious practice personal and private and chooses to allow others to have their own religious views.

I would revert the Pledge of Allegience to it's original form, removing the phrase "Under God" and I would, as Theodore Roosevelt suggested, remove "In God We Trust" from both paper currency and coins because it is both unconstitutional and in TR's word "sacriligious" (TR was a devout Christian, btw).

I support the right to burn the flag but would not do this myself. I put this in the same category as allowing the KKK to espouse racism, I would not do that either.

acludem