Separation of Church & State

[Sons of Liberty]

The separation of church and state is an important issue in many different societies. Should the government actively support and endorse any particular religions or religion generally? Should the government suppress religion in public so as to prevent sectarian strife? Or should the government remain generally neutral, neither helping nor hindering any religions?

So what is the separation of church and state? What does it mean for religion, religious organizations and the government? Does it really mean anything for people personally, or is it only a function of large groups? What does it mean to be a separationist, accommodationist, or non-preferentialist?

In the United States:

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, [Establishment Clause] or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [Free Excercise Clause] 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.

In Canada:

Section 1 & 2 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that certain freedoms are guaranteed and are subject "only to such reasonable limits that prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Among these freedoms is are "freedom of conscience and religion..." These sections are vaguely similar to the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I started this thread because tober and I discussed it, briefly, in another thread. Opinions?

 

[petros]

Kings used to make the Church run things. Then some dudes decided "hey lets run it ourselves" and they said " okay lets do it". And they did. No more Church running the Gov. for the King.

It has nothing to do with Religious belief within Gov. just the Church not running things for the King.

Gov can use Religion within Gov all it wants.

 

[Goober]

The separation of church and state is an important issue in many different societies. Should the government actively support and endorse any particular religions or religion generally?

The Govt has no role what so ever in Religion. But from what I can recall both Canada and the US use Religious groups-Organizations to provide certain services to those in need.

Should the government suppress religion in public so as to prevent sectarian strife? Or should the government remain generally neutral, neither helping nor hindering any religions?

You could just as easily insert mass rioting? Much like happened with the Rodney King riots.

Try suppressing religion and see the strife that follows.

Govts can use and or impose a variety of temporary measures up to and including Martial Law if needed.

 

[Johnnny]

We are not a theocracy.... I honestly cant remember the last time a judge gave out a sentence based on what the bible says....

 

[tober]

The separation of church and state is an important issue in many different societies. Should the government actively support and endorse any particular religions or religion generally? Should the government suppress religion in public so as to prevent sectarian strife? Or should the government remain generally neutral, neither helping nor hindering any religions?

So what is the separation of church and state? What does it mean for religion, religious organizations and the government? Does it really mean anything for people personally, or is it only a function of large groups? What does it mean to be a separationist, accommodationist, or non-preferentialist?

In the United States:

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, [Establishment Clause] or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [Free Excercise Clause] 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.

In Canada:

Section 1 & 2 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that certain freedoms are guaranteed and are subject "only to such reasonable limits that prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Among these freedoms is are "freedom of conscience and religion..." These sections are vaguely similar to the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I started this thread because tober and I discussed it, briefly, in another thread. Opinions?

Canada has from pre-Charter days a United Church Act. Its purpose was secular, to facilitate property transfer and administrative details when three old churches melded into a new one. It did not coerce any of the existing congregations of the old churches into joining the new church. The purpose and wording of the Act had nothing to do with "religion". It was created by the consent of the three major social institutions involved and makes no reference to matters of "religion" or "faith".

Protecting people from religious extremism was a big deal in the 1600's through 1800's in Europe and North America. Europe and North America went through some of what Islam is experiencing now. An example is the Massachusetts witchcraft trials. Some of it lingers on in Northern Ireland. However in Ireland the fight is not about "religion". The fight is about economies and jobs because of old grudges. Nobody cares how you worship, they care whose side you're on.

So yeah, separation of church and state are important, IMO.

 

[petros]

We are not a theocracy.... I honestly cant remember the last time a judge gave out a sentence based on what the bible says....

The Jewdiciary?

 

[WLDB]

Kings used to make the Church run things. Then some dudes decided "hey lets run it ourselves" and they said " okay lets do it". And they did. No more Church running the Gov. for the King.

Not totally. It was more like the other way around. Kings ruled for the church. The Pope had the power to excommunicate monarchs and support rival claims to the thrown if he didnt like the King of the time. For centuries Kings from all over Europe had to live with that possibility and couldnt risk pissing off the Pope - til the reformation. Then Henry decided to make his own Church and put himself at its head. Nearly five hundred years later our head of state is still the head of a Church. In practice church and state are pretty separate, but not constitutionally or legally. The constitution still speaks of God and prayers happen in parliament and other legislatures across the country before business begins.

 

[petros]

Nope. Holy Roman empire ran the Church.

Holy Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[WLDB]

We are not a theocracy.... I honestly cant remember the last time a judge gave out a sentence based on what the bible says....

You dont need to be a theocracy for there to be a link between church and state. Ireland for example isnt a theocracy but the church is still pretty powerful over there.

 

[karrie]

When I look across the political landscape, it's hard to ignore the heavy hand of church in the politics of many of the countries with the worst human rights records. It's like the government and politicians team up to attempt to glean every last ounce of control that the people will give up, creating a smoke screen where there should be accountability. Once people stand up and demand that only the government actually govern, things often improve dramatically. Perhaps it goes hand in hand with the education level of the countries at that point. Whatever the precise reason, it's obvious.

I'm Catholic, but I would not want to live in a country run by my church. The same goes for many educated people. My church and my government are distinct in the control they have over my life. I don't need them mixing.

 

[WLDB]

Nope. Holy Roman empire ran the Church.

Holy Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which ran the rest of Europe with the threat of excommunication. Say no to a Pope and see what happens. Unless of course you happen to have a stronger army. Generally the Pope was able to get a few friends together when someone would try that.

 

[petros]

The Holy Roman Empire (Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum, German: Heiliges Römisches Reich, Italian: Sacro Romano Impero, Czech: Svatá říše římská, Slovene: Sveto rimsko cesarstvo, Dutch: Heilige Roomse Rijk, French: Saint-Empire romain germanique) was a multi-ethnic and complex union of territories in Central Europe existing from 962 to 1806.[2][3] I

The Holy Roman Empire did what it did when it wanted to do it without any Pope.

 

[tober]

We are not a theocracy.... I honestly cant remember the last time a judge gave out a sentence based on what the bible says....

I can remember when. I agreed with it then and I do now. A federal cabinet minister had been caught in a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada that had to do with his office - possibly bribes or corruption. When sentencing him the Federal Court Justice quoted Scripture in Luke 12:48, where it says, For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required .... (KJV) and gave him a stiff sentence.

The issue, of course, is the context. If the judge had said that the Bible required him to render a harsh sentence, using the Bible would have been an appealable error. He didn't. He just quoted the Bible as a personal source of wisdom then imposed a sentence that was within legal guidelines. Nothing says a judge cannot use a personal source of wisdom and inspiration as long as be does not exceed his authority or say that his source requires him do it.

Something to be aware of in religious debates is those who are against religion, period. It is one thing to wisely regulate something to prevent harm. It is another to forbid all people to have anything to do with it because you dislike it. The latter is unfair.

 

[karrie]

I can remember when. I agreed with it then and I do now. A federal cabinet minister had been caught in a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada that had to do with his office - possibly bribes or corruption. When sentencing him the Federal Court Justice quoted Scripture in Luke 12:48, where it says, For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required .... (KJV) and gave him a stiff sentence. .

Sounds to me like a case of the bible backing up legal precedent and expectation, rather than informing it. To me, I could care less then. It's when it's dictating what has to happen that it's a problem. The laws of government, humanity, and religion, are all bound to intersect at many levels.

 

[PoliticalNick]

The separation is to prevent a theocracy going overboard. For example: During the inquisition it was deemed illegal to have any other religion than Catholicism. 'Heretics' were tortured and killed for believing something different from the Catholic doctrine. There are places in the world today where holding Christianity as your belief will get you a long jail term or a death sentence.

It is also to stop the courts from handing out punishment according to religious doctrine. Can you imagine a judge today finding a defendant liable to give the plaintiff a 'pound of flesh'. How about a judgement of giving 'an eye for an eye' or some other punishment described in the bible.

The separation of church and state is a good thing and soon it will be a complete separation as phrases referring to God or church are slowly being removed or revamped.

Of course George has the best reasoning....

 

[taxslave]

Best thing government can do is leave religion alone. REligious groups should also leave government alone.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Best thing government can do is leave religion alone. REligious groups should also leave government alone.

The best scenario is if we could get them both to leave us alone!

 

[MHz]

I don't see what was wrong with the way things were set up in Romans 13. The leaders of the Nations were given the duty to protect the citizens from evil as defined in that chapter. In return the citizens did their duties and didn't cause needless problems for other men of for the State. A more refined definition of what a 'busy-body' is and if the State can be a one by interfering in other nations affairs needlessly.

The Church is only supposed to be publishers of Scripture rather than blood and brimstone preachers, the flock is supposed to be 'self-guiding' if the Church is anyplace a few talk about some part of the Bible. The way a person is counted in the temple in Re:11 is to say a prayer or be in some conversations about God.

Correct me if I am wrong but the Church was supposed to give money to the poor through interest free loans in that the Clergy was supposed to be the bankers, almost forgot about that part.

 

[tober]

It is also to stop the courts from handing out punishment according to religious doctrine. Can you imagine a judge today finding a defendant liable to give the plaintiff a 'pound of flesh'.

Maybe just a "piece"?

 

[gopher]

best book on the subject: