Why is a State Religion a bad idea ?

[SayMyName]

A state religion is a bad idea, if one wishes to worship as one pleases. A state religion is a good idea if one is the "state" and the people are unruly; in which case you have to place a squad of cops on every corner, though a state religion with churches galore would be cheaper.

 

[Sky Dancer]

For many Americans, America itself is like a religion. They have an image of it and believe it is the truth and that it is always right. it is impossible to pose any question that can even vaguely be interpreted as casting doubt.

America, love it or leave it. Remember that one? My country right or wrong.

 

[midcan5]

Depends on which side of the fence the question is viewed from. In a complex, diverse, multicultural nation of many religions, it is best left in the private arena. For another point of view, from another side of the fence I'll include a quote from a religious person's viewpoint.

"Put differently, there are two equal but opposite errors into which Christians have fallen in the modern world. One error is to "privatize" faith, interpreting and applying it to the personal and spiritual realm only. That way faith loses its integrity and becomes "privately engaging and publicly irrelevant." ¶ The other error, represented by the Religious Left in the 1960s and the Religious Right since the late 1970s, is to "politicize" faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, the church becomes "the regime at prayer," Christians become the "useful idiots" or "biddable foot soldiers" for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology in its purest form: Christian beliefs are used as weapons for political interests. In short, out of anxiety about a vanishing culture or in a foolish exchange for an illusory promise of power, Christians are cheated into bartering away their identity, motives, language, passions, and votes.

... Christians have already lost their independence when they attempt to find political solutions for problems that are essentially cultural and prepolitical — in other words, when they ask politics to do what politics cannot do.

When there has been a profound sea change in culture, as the United States has experienced since the 1960s, it is both foolish and futile to think that it can be reversed and restored by politics alone. That approach will always fail, and can only fail. Politics is downstream from the deep and important changes in American culture, and what lies upstream is mostly beyond the reach of political action. Thus overreaching political activism is bound not only to fail, but to leave the cultural changes more deeply entrenched than ever and those fighting them weaker than ever." Os Guinness 'The Case For Civility" [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Case-Civility-Why-Future-Depends/dp/B002XUM2GU/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends on It: Os Guinness: Books[/ame]

"The Threat of Islam" by Sociologist Os Guinness [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAg8suWRjvs]"The Threat of Islam" by Sociologist Os Guinness - YouTube[/ame]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Theocracy is , no doubt a statist form of gov't

However, I see nothing wrong with local gov'ts or federal for that matter
putting up religious decorations that represent the different faiths.
I really do not view that as a "state" religion but more as a reflection of the political body.

Here is what is wrong with it, among other reasons:

Whether the key word is "endorsement," "favoritism," or "promotion," the essential principle remains the same. The Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 687 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring).

First and foremost, the concurrence squarely rejects any notion that this Court will tolerate some government endorsement of religion. Rather, the concurrence recognizes any endorsement of religion as "invalid," id. at 690, because it

“sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community…”

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter

If the people are upset by it then they can vote accordingly

Civil rights are not subject to popular vote or majority rule, a fundamental tenet of the rule of law. The problem is when the people are not upset by it.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Theocracy is , no doubt a statist form of gov't

However, I see nothing wrong with local gov'ts or federal for that matter
putting up religious decorations that represent the different faiths.
I really do not view that as a "state" religion but more as a reflection of the political body.

Here is what is wrong with it, among other reasons:

Whether the key word is "endorsement," "favoritism," or "promotion," the essential principle remains the same. The Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 687 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring).

First and foremost, the concurrence squarely rejects any notion that this Court will tolerate some government endorsement of religion. Rather, the concurrence recognizes any endorsement of religion as "invalid," id. at 690, because it

“sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community…”

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter

If the people are upset by it then they can vote accordingly

Civil rights are not subject to popular vote or majority rule, a fundamental tenet of the rule of law. The problem is when the people are not upset by it.

Yes the "Christmas wars"

What is and is not allowed is to a large degree, open to debate.

The SCOTUS has ruled in several cases that
Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)

In a 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court decided that Pawtucket's display did not violate the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren Burger emphasized the long history of official acknowledgment of the role of religion in American life. This history, he wrote, suggests that the Establishment Clause does not require a total exclusion of religious images and messages from government sponsored displays.​

and in the County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989), it was ruled that the they overstepped these bounds.


So the lesson learned is a well-placed Santa and reindeer could save a crèche from being removed by the court
Indeed, if it is inclusive enough of multiple beliefs, the court will tend not to rule against it


In a more current case..
Chabad of Southern Ohio & Congregation Lubavitch v. City of Cincinnati (2004)

the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the city of Cincinnati could not exclude a religious group from placing a Hanukkah menorah on the city's main public square. Because the square was a public forum for private expression, the court concluded that the city had unconstitutionally attempted to exclude controversial displays, including those with religious content that might offend local citizens. The right of equal access to a public forum did not permit such an exclusion, the court ruled.​

Of course "public forums" open up whole new areas of "equal access"
and people's civil rights as well
No doubt a two way street here

 

[emilynghiem]

For the record, I DO NOT believe there should be a State Religion
and I believe most people do, as well.

Why is it "bad" or why do you think it is bad ?

But as Locke argued and as I believe,
the government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....

If you count believing in Constitutional values and principles
as a religion, we already have one. The problem is, as with all other religions,
we don't always agree on interpretation, and who has the right to establish interpretation in each particular case of disagreement.

We establish, impose or threaten to impose
religious judgment or bias in laws on a daily basis, on spiritual or religious issues involved in
marriage, immigration laws, abortion euthanasia or suicide as murder,
the death penalty, etc. where not everyone agrees religiously and yet
we submit to laws on this issues decided and enforced by the state.

these technically constitute the equivalent of establishing religious beliefs
regardless if we agree or not; yet we only notice the bias if we disagree!

 

[Neotrotsky]

For the record, I DO NOT believe there should be a State Religion
and I believe most people do, as well.

Why is it "bad" or why do you think it is bad ?

But as Locke argued and as I believe,
the government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....

If you count believing in Constitutional values and principles
as a religion, we already have one. The problem is, as with all other religions,
we don't always agree on interpretation, and who has the right to establish interpretation in each particular case of disagreement.

We establish, impose or threaten to impose
religious judgment or bias in laws on a daily basis, on spiritual or religious issues involved in
marriage, immigration laws, abortion euthanasia or suicide as murder,
the death penalty, etc. where not everyone agrees religiously and yet
we submit to laws on this issues decided and enforced by the state.

these technically constitute the equivalent of establishing religious beliefs
regardless if we agree or not; yet we only notice the bias if we disagree!

No doubt in a more inclusive and global sense of the word- religion
one could say this.....

I do feel this "problem" you address is further complicated and compounded by
the decrease in traditional religious participation for some.

This void, if you will, is filled by a secular substitute , the gov't. We then see the things you address combined
with the gov't taking on more and more "responsibility" in areas that might have been addressed
in the past by people's moral compass guided by their religious beliefs.

In the former Soviet Eastern Bloc countries, religion was frowned upon by the state and viewed as a competitor for control of the people.

While the official gov't policy was one of atheism, the state just substituted their own
symbols for religious ones. Example, one would get married in the name of Lenin or some other state hero.

Even the political leaders would try to build an almost messianic atmosphere around themselves
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Alexis de Tocqueville

Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic
which they set forth in glowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; it is more needed
in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible that society should escape destruction
if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? ​

 

[Avatar4321]

A Simple reason. The Scriptures teach us that God wants a willing heart and a willing mind. The government only works with the use of force. If we believe the scriptures then empowering the government to force people to believe is contrary to God's commandments. The scriptures are clear "Choose this day whom you will serve." It is a privilege and opportunity to serve God. We are blessed when we geniunely serve Him and not when it's forced upon us.

For most of history, CHurch and State went hand in hand. The notion of freedom of religion and separation of Church and State is a relatively recent one.

I'm still waiting for freedom FROM religion, the only true freedom there is.

There is no such thing. You can disbelieve, but that's still a religion. And belief or lack of belief doesnt change the fact that God is still there.

And yes, for most of history church and state went hand and hand. Thankfully, the Founders learned from early Israel and the early Christian ages when there wasnt a Church and state established.

 

[Avatar4321]

How are you not free from religion ?

True freedom would allow for both to exist
believers and non believers, would it not?

When you guys (and no, I don't mean you personally) are advocating laws purely on the basis of "My Magic Sky Friends says we should do it this way" the I am not free from religion.

So we need to repeal murder laws to make you happy?

 

[Avatar4321]

For the record, I DO NOT believe there should be a State Religion
and I believe most people do, as well.

Why is it "bad" or why do you think it is bad ?

But as Locke argued and as I believe,
the government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....

We already have a state religion. It's deism.

Seems to me, that if there is one, it's secularism

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't get why religious people want to force everyone else to follow their faith? nobody is stopping you from being a religious Muslim, Hindu, Baptist or whatever the hell you are in this country stop trying to shove your faith down my throat.

I dont really see anyone trying to force anyone.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why is a state religion a bad idea? Look at the countries who have them for your answer.

Even in Tibet, the state religion was Buddhism, and it supported fiefdoms, or feudal society centered around the monasteries.

It created the causes and conditions for China to take over.

UK doesnt seem that bad to me...

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't get why religious people want to force everyone else to follow their faith? nobody is stopping you from being a religious Muslim, Hindu, Baptist or whatever the hell you are in this country stop trying to shove your faith down my throat.

Religious folks are like Amway representatives. They're always trying to build their pyramid.

I don't see how that is the least bit accurate.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Not going to happen in this country. We have the right to freely exercise our religious beleifs, which include preaching the Gospel to all the world. If you dont want to hear that, that's fine. But we aren't going to keep to ourselves. Not when we are called to do the exact opposite.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We've moved decidedly in the direction of a Christian theocracy. If you want to know why state religion is a bad idea, look to the Middle East. Then consider, having a Christian Taliban.

You mean like in the UK?

 

[Avatar4321]

Christians don't want a theocracy. As a pointed out before, God wants a willing heart and a willing mind. You can't force people into heaven.

We want our Republic Restored.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Christians don't want a theocracy. As a pointed out before, God wants a willing heart and a willing mind. You can't force people into heaven.

Yes. The fear that Christians (in general) want a theocracy is little more than liberal projection.

 

[Vidi]

Christians don't want a theocracy. As a pointed out before, God wants a willing heart and a willing mind. You can't force people into heaven.

Yes. The fear that Christians (in general) want a theocracy is little more than liberal projection.

If people werent using terms like "faith based initiatives" maybe they wouldnt have that fear?

 

[Intense]

For the record, I DO NOT believe there should be a State Religion
and I believe most people do, as well.

Why is it "bad" or why do you think it is bad ?

But as Locke argued and as I believe,
the government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....

Matters of Conscience are Individual and Personal. Caesar has Zero claim there. Life is good, huh.

 

[syrenn]

For the record, I DO NOT believe there should be a State Religion
and I believe most people do, as well.

Why is it "bad" or why do you think it is bad ?

But as Locke argued and as I believe,
the government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....

Not everyone believes the same thing, or even if they do have the same religion... they interrupt said religion differently.