separation of church and state

[Fred]

Originally Posted by sportrider

In God we trust. this country was founded with core values. the proof of it is everywhere.

It's written on every piece of currency we carry.

I had to insert the obligatory image from They Live starring Rowdy Roddy Piper.


But when you look at money, and then you look at the Constitution, I hope that you'd see the Constitution as the document with more legal value, more historic importance, and more forethought.

One of those two items was meant to be the defining rules for this nation. The other is a form of currency.

The constitution's first amendment spells it out pretty clearly. They didn't want Congress to pass any laws that pertained to religion.

Unfortunately in this day and age we have a government where the Supreme Court is able to create laws through legal precedent and interpretation of existing laws. And we have a president who is able to create laws because he says so. So the amendment has been severely weakened. But let's examine the original intent.

They assumed that all laws would be passed by Congress. They didn't want Congress to make any laws that had anything to do with (respecting) any religion. That means that not only can Congress not ban a religion, it cannot endorse a religion. They wanted the two to remain uninvolved.

Where they failed, in my opinion, is that they didn't consider that zealots could gain power, and without ever making laws directly linked to religion, these zealots could pass laws that reflected their religious beliefs. A religious majority in power will happily ignore the Constitution and write whatever laws they want to see.

Those laws will not be laws that are not based on reason and intelligent discourse, but laws that are based on biased interpretation of a many times translated, ancient book that was never meant to be a basis for government in the first place.

[mstewar1]

Originally Posted by tom5796

Please don't discount Obama's ability to bring the two (government and church) closer together. He will gladly take your money and give it to churches.

Obama vows $500m in faith-based aid - The Boston Globe

Um yeah, and dubya didn't do anything at all like this. Oh wait, yes, he did...

Bush Takes Battle Over Funding of 'Faith-Based' Groups to States (washingtonpost.com)

I think it's wrong for the government to give tax money to religious organizations under any guise. Religious groups get tax-free status and that's enough. Don't take my money and give it to them, too. Let them hold a bake sale or pass the plate to their members.

The U.S. needs greater separation of State and Church, not less.

[Jman]

I have heard that religious organizations hold the largest percentage of real estate in the USA(roughly 20) and pay no taxes on it. Can anyone confirm this with a reliable source?

[sportrider]

separation is necessary, how about the legalization of same sex marriage? with this being passed churches will lose there Tax exempt status due to discrimination how does this fit into the Constitution?

[Jman]

Wow....that explains alot. Interesting info - thanks Sportrider

[Oscar54]

Did I just miss something here?

[tom5796]

Originally Posted by mstewar1

Um yeah, and dubya didn't do anything at all like this. Oh wait, yes, he did...

Yes, but he's not on the ballot in November.

On the issue at hand, we are on the same page. Taxpayer money going to already tax-subsidized institutions is just another form of welfare.

Kinda like Obama's "tax cut" for 95% of the population.

Sorry, couldn't help meandering off topic. I'll post a new thread on this.

[Jman]

Originally Posted by Oscar54

Did I just miss something here?

There has been a lot of hatred and anti-gay stuff being perpetuated by many religious organizations. If what Sportrider said is true, then that makes perfect sense to me.(the situation)

[necrotimus]

The separation should be maintained but it is being taken to extremes by both sides. The two will cross paths and laws will affect religion and religion will affect laws. It is an extreme view to think that they can be completely seperated. People should learn to compromise and not focus on the polar opposites so much.

When the founding fathers formed the ideal of seperation it wasn't meant for moral beliefs it was in reaction to the control that the catholic church (and other religions) held over so many nations for so long. The founding fathers didn't want to have to seek a higher powers authority particularly a human one speaking for that higher power. They had seen what it had done in Britian and other places and didn't want it involved in our country. It can also be argued that religion is also another form of government (which I will not argue here) and that the founding fathers wanted a government controlled by the people.

Morality can be seperate from religion. It is possible to be a moral man and have no religion. However religions often hold members to a specific code of morals. This is often where the debate of church and state occurs.

Fictional Canidate A: I believe in a flat tax, I believe in the right to an abortion, I don't believe in same sex marriages, I beleive in god, i beleive canada is evil

Fictional Canidate B: I believe in the rich should pay more taxes, I don't believe in the right to an abortion, I believe in same sex marriages, I don't believe in god, i believe mexico is evil

Fictional Canidate C: I believe only what the bible says and I will enforce the laws of god all nations besides us are evil.

None of those statements have anything to do with the seperation of church and state. Those are moral values/beliefs that those candiates have. Even Canidate C hasn't stated anything that triggers seperation of church and state. Even if more laws are passed on abortion or same sex marriages, for or against, should not trigger the seperation of church and state arguement.

Lets say same sex marriages are made illegal and lets say the people who pass it say its because of god. That is still not an issue for seperation of church and state. They may even all belong to the same church but it still won't be a case for this issue.

However if the church mentioned above starts exerting control directly over the government then it is an issue for seperation of church and state. Likewise if the government mandates relgion or religous practices.

Now lets deal with those polar opposites that I know are going to get me flamed:

Separation of church and state means that religion and by extension moral beliefs have no place in government. Really? Then why was slavery outlawed, why was freedom of speech and religion included, why did we fight a war with hitler, why is it illegal to kill someone?

Separation of church and state means the state should pass no laws barring religous practices. Really? A number of religions condone killing, torture, and sacrifices.

"I ask that you pray" versus "You must pray"

[Jman]

There needs to be an unbiased code of ethics, laws and human rights everyone can agree on based entirely on its own merit. A good rule of thumb would be: would I want this done to me? Example....would I want to be enslaved - no, Would I want to be stolen from - no, would I want to be murdered - no....I'm sure many of the resulting laws would align with many religions anyway. I see this as a good start for a solution as I'm sure it can be refined and fine tuned.