All too often I hear of politician's policies being determined by moral guidelines based on their religions. But is government not supposed to be separate from religion? Is it proper for a person who is elected into a position of power to govern based on their religious beliefs?
The words of some of America's founding fathers.
Thomas Jefferson 1)âChristianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law.â -letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814 4)âGouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself.â -Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, Feb. 1800
Benjamin Franklin 1)âLighthouses are more helpful than churches.â -in Poor Richardâs Almanac 2)âIn the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it."
James Madison 1)âReligious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.â-letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774 2)âThe purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.â -1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches
John Adams 1)âThis would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.â 2)âThe divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.â
Thomas Paine 1)âOf all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.â 2)âAll national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.â 3)âThe story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision, and credulity believe. Stories of this kind had been told of the assassination of Julius Caesar.â 4)âThe study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.â
I'm merely looking for opinions. I can see both sides of the argument. One one hand the person running for government has a right to his/her own religion. And if elected, will govern based on his/her opinion. But does it cross a line if that opinion is based on what a pope says? Or is it totally just because the people who elected them knew full well there beliefs?
And if elected, will govern based on his/her opinion.
This becomes a problem when their opinion hurts people. If gays arn't allowed to marry because of your opinion then there is a problem. Either we put a smarter person in office, or you use your opinion in a way that doesn't hurt people.
This becomes a problem when their opinion hurts people. If gays arn't allowed to marry because of your opinion then there is a problem. Either we put a smarter person in office, or you use your opinion in a way that doesn't hurt people.
But if that is the opinion of the people who voted for them. Then does that become an issue? If the people who vote are religious. How are you supposed to separate church and state? :S
PS: Look at those sexy question marks where the apostrophes go :P Gotta love that AG copy paste :P
But if that is the opinion of the people who voted for them. Then does that become an issue? If the people who vote are religious. How are you supposed to separate church and state? :S
Well not everyone is religious. So whether or not its their opinion not everyone agrees, and shouldn't have to if it hurts them.
Well not everyone is religious. So whether or not its their opinion not everyone agrees, and shouldn't have to if it hurts them.
But not everyone agrees with any law being passed. A government cannot please everyone. If 70% of people in a given area believe gay marriage is wrong due to their religion. Then the same 70% of people vote for a candidate due to their religion. Should that candidate represent those beliefs that gay marriage is wrong in his/her policy?
I just feel that the line is quite blurred because if 70% of people voted for a candidate because they believe gay marriage is wrong but it has nothing to do with any religion. Then that candidate is elected and does what the popular opinion says he should do then it's not wrong?
So the one candidate is allowed to disapprove of gay marriage because his motives are not based in relgion. But what is the other candidate supposed to do?
Should that candidate represent those beliefs that gay marriage is wrong in his/her policy?
Just saying that I think something is wrong, and then hurting someone because of it is not a good thing. Just because many people think its wrong, doesn't mean that what they want should just be given to them.
Then that candidate is elected and does what the popular opinion says he should do then it's not wrong?
That confused me a bit. But I want to say that whether it has to do with religion or not, hurting innocent people without their consent is wrong. Gays are people too, so hurting them is still wrong.
So the one candidate is allowed to disapprove of gay marriage because his motives are not based in relgion. But what is the other candidate supposed to do?
No, neither are. When they can give a good reason for it, then go ahead. But so far there haven't been any. So far we are carlessly hurting people.
But not everyone agrees with any law being passed. A government cannot please everyone.
the question is. does it realy hurt the god believers. what pain does it realy give? here in the netherlands it's legal nothing realy changed. except that some people didn't wanna marriage them (government wise) because it was against their believe in religion. wich they now are forced to do so by a judge. whit the reason "in politics only 1 book is right, and that is the law-book" thats probably not what he preciesly said. but it come to the point that religion in no was going to force it's way in the laws set for the marriage.
after that about 50 of those people quited their job. multiply it to the usa i guess it would be 3000 or something (which is their own choise ofcours)
But not everyone agrees with any law being passed. A government cannot please everyone. If 70% of people in a given area believe gay marriage is wrong due to their religion. Then the same 70% of people vote for a candidate due to their religion. Should that candidate represent those beliefs that gay marriage is wrong in his/her policy
Another problem being that there are only two parties in the united states. Most people either vote one way or the other, however a lot of people don't share every single view with the party they belong to. People usually hold some conservative views and some liberal views but are forced to vote one way or another.
So even if 50% of people believe gay marriage is wrong, you may find 70% of people voting for a candidate due to his other policies. People have to decide what issues are most important to them when voting on a candidate, and to many people, gay marriage isn't a priority. They may not be against it, but if they're not for it either they won't mind voting for a candidate who opposes gay marriage.
I must point out my example of the gay marriage issue is just that, an example :P
Just saying that I think something is wrong, and then hurting someone because of it is not a good thing. Just because many people think its wrong, doesn't mean that what they want should just be given to them.
Other government policies hurt people all the time. Say I believe that smoking marijuana is wrong, therefore I oppose medicinal marijuana as well. There are people who aren't getting medicine. That policy isn't based on religion yet I am hurting people with it because it is a belief of mine. Just like religion would be a belief of mine. How is this any different?
That confused me a bit. But I want to say that whether it has to do with religion or not, hurting innocent people without their consent is wrong. Gays are people too, so hurting them is still wrong.
My point is what this topic is actually about. It's not about gay marriage really. It's about the fact that two men can get the same conclusions for what their policy is. And if both people are allowed to act on that conclusion, or if only one is. Because the one man is told what is right by his mind and the other, by his priest.
Is the man who is told what is right by the priest allowed to make policy based on what that priest says or not?
I do not understand how Church and State are ever truly separate if the elections are full of candidates that are basing their policies on their religion.
Another problem being that there are only two parties in the united states. Most people either vote one way or the other, however a lot of people don't share every single view with the party they belong to. People usually hold some conservative views and some liberal views but are forced to vote one way or another.
So even if 50% of people believe gay marriage is wrong, you may find 70% of people voting for a candidate due to his other policies. People have to decide what issues are most important to them when voting on a candidate, and to many people, gay marriage isn't a priority. They may not be against it, but if they're not for it either they won't mind voting for a candidate who opposes gay marriage.
This is an issue. I believe in a multi-party system. But then you have to be careful not to have what Canada has (at the moment) two parties representing slightly differing Liberal viewpoints and one party representing Conservative. Result = Conservative always wins because the two Liberal parties keep splitting the Liberal vote up.
You need to have a system with 3 or more parties where each party represents a distinct area of the spectrum of political beliefs. Overlap is unavoidable of course, but they can't be TOO similar.
Let me try to help further explain your argument ThroatLozenge, I had this same argument with my brother a while ago.
Let's say there are two main candidates running for the presidency. One is a democrat, and one is a republican. However, let's say the democrat candidate reveals that he is not a religious person. He doesn't say he's atheist or anything, he just says that he doesn't attend church. The republican candidate has been expressing for most of his campaign that he is an avid Christian and wants to help America uphold such traditional Christian views and standards.
Now, even if the large majority of people agree with the democratic candidates policies and proposals, how many people would then not vote for him because he is not Christian?
How many non-Christian presidents have we had? None. Not a single one. How is that separation of church and state if religion is a key factor in electing the head of our nation?
As for the whole "arty" system, that needs to be stopped. It's royally screwing America over. People need to vote based on what they think it right, not what group that candidate belongs to, either religiously or politically.
Separation of church and state has become a problem that it was never intended to be. With that said, and before I go on, I would like to give my background on this subject.
I have studied Constitutional Law from a lawyer who has argued in front of the Supreme Court of the US. He also has argued in many state Supreme Courts as well. Several of his cases will be found in many Constitutional Law textbooks. (Doe v. Bolton; sister case to the infamous Roe v. Wade case; Calabretta v. Floyd; Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind; as well as others.)
Ok, back to the issue. This "separation" is about the government (obviously, as everything in the Constitution applies to the government--not individuals) not imposing or forcing a certain system of religion on the whole country. It was never meant that private people cannot express their type of religion in governmental systems.
Some examples that are completely Constitutional: Religious groups are allowed to use government buildings to hold religious worship if the building is open to everyone. (Freedom of Assembly) Handicapped persons may apply for governmental financial assistance whatever the occupation they choose to endeavor towards. Praying has been allowed in many of the governmental systems including the Supreme Court, Congress, The Senate, and several others. This is not a breach of the Establishment Clause because it was a private citizen initiating the prayer. Participants were welcomed to pray in whatever manner they chose, including not at all. Private people who work in governmental facilities have the right to state their opinion based on religion when they are not acting within their sphere of authority. This sphere is characterized by whether they have the responsibilities of their position. If that person is a principal of the school, his sphere of authority is within the school or wherever the school extends its reach. (i.e. field trips, plays, sports, etc.) At home, church, or in the community he or she has the right and privilege to speak as a private citizen and thus not be under the Constitution's jurisdiction. Where this is broken is when the governmental system imposes religious beliefs on those enrolled in the system. (Students for example) However, a student has the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. They are not under the Constitution and therefore have the right to do so.
Lastly, the Founding Fathers were not against religion by any means. However, they instituted the Establishment Clause to prevent the government from, either in their lifetime or in the future, abusing religion. Again I reemphasize that religion was not, and should not be discriminated against in governmental facilities.
I hope that this clears up any misconceptions about this issue, and if anyone reading this has any questions on what I've said, please message me on my profile; I am more active on there than I am on the forums.
I hope that this clears up any misconceptions about this issue, and if anyone reading this has any questions on what I've said, please message me on my profile; I am more active on there than I am on the forums.
A helpful person. This clears up a lot of the questions I had! Thank you!
Explain this then. Abortion. I am confused as to how the things you say would apply to this.
Ok, back to the issue. This "separation" is about the government (obviously, as everything in the Constitution applies to the government--not individuals) not imposing or forcing a certain system of religion on the whole country.
If abortion was illegal. And the country had a leader/government dominated by a religion that believed abortion was wrong. This would be unconstitutional right? A in this situation the government if forcing the religious practice of refraining from abortion when the people who may not agree?
But if abortion was illegal and the country had a leader/government dominated by non religious people it would be fine? Because it is not a religious practice of refraining from abortion?
What if abortion was illegal and the country had a leader/government that was composed of a variety of people of different religions, but all the religions believed abortion was wrong? Would it still be wrong because it is not one religion but many?
In these three cases, is it constitutional or not?
I understand how it applies to prayer in a classroom or something like that as that is a clear and obvious religious practice. But is never using abortion a religious practice as well? I mean they are both acts that may be deemed a part of a religion.
Of course I'm actually unclear as to the law on abortion in America. And I have to speak for American government a lot given how many members of this site are American. I don't believe abortion is illegal in America. I am using these as examples to clarify questions on what is allowed and what is not allowed in government.
I will post on your profile to come back and look at this topic because I have further questions...and they are kind of long to put on your page xD Plus I think I want to keep this discussion out there for people to see
I'm not trying to say we do have a seperation of church and state, I'm saying we should. Being religious does not nessicarily mean that you will only follow religious views and act upon them. I know that not everyone is religious. So making laws that only benefit the Christians and hurts others is wrong.
A helpful person. This clears up a lot of the questions I had! Thank you!
You're welcome, glad that I could clear up some of your questions and I hope that I will be able to clear up those about abortion as well.
If abortion was illegal. And the country had a leader/government dominated by a religion that believed abortion was wrong. This would be unconstitutional right?
I would say that it is not unconstitutional.
1: If, as you say in your hypothetical example, the government was dominated by people of a same belief system, (i.e. believing abortion is wrong) I would argue that the majority of the country was not in favor of allowing abortions. It would be very rare, if not impossible, for a country to elect the officials who all have the same view without agreeing with them. I cannot see how people would agree with all the other policies those candidates support and just have abortions just "happen" to show up time and time again.
2: The Establishment Clause along with The Free Exercise Clause of The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (Establishment Clause) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (Exercise Clause)
These Clauses are what the Separation of Church and State is all about. Disallowing abortion does not fall under either of the clauses: It is neither establishing or creating a new religion, and neither is it restricting any form of religion. None of the arguments for abortion claim to have religious foundations; most of them have to do with the "right of the woman to do whatever she wants with her body." (Note: I disagree with this line of thinking, but I won't argue it here because it will quickly stray off topic.) Since no claims have been made that having an abortion is connected to any form of religion, abortions cannot be reasoned using the Religion Clause. (The combination of both the Establishment and the Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.)
But if abortion was illegal and the country had a leader/government dominated by non religious people it would be fine? Because it is not a religious practice of refraining from abortion?
It would have no difference from a situation where a country has religious leaders. (Same thing with governments who have many different types of religion.) Not allowing abortions does not establish a religion or force everyone into the same religion. Yes, the choice to not have an abortion often has religious influences; however, it is not a religious act in and of itself to refrain from having an abortion.
In these three cases, is it constitutional or not?
It is definitely constitutional to allow abortions, as it is to disallow abortions.
I understand how it applies to prayer in a classroom or something like that as that is a clear and obvious religious practice. But is never using abortion a religious practice as well? I mean they are both acts that may be deemed a part of a religion.
Like I said before, choosing to refrain from having an abortion is not a religious act, though it might be religiously motivated. (Which is not a problem because every single person is motivated by their religion or worldview, whether that person be Muslim, Hindu, Christian, or Atheistic(I apologize if I miss anyone's religion, these are the ones I could think of off the top of my head)--all of them have their particular worldview as act upon it.)
I did not realize that you were not from the States. I apologize if that made it hard to follow any of my statements because I likely assumed that if was "well-known" knowledge. Abortion is currently not illegal in the States right now.
Plus I think I want to keep this discussion out there for people to see
Good point! I'm glad that you chose to post on here rather than comment on my profile.
@Dair: Sorry about missing your post there. We do have a separation of church and state right now. In fact, I would argue that it is too entwined right now. Many times the state has involved itself in matters it has no jurisdiction over.
Yeah, I definitely agree. Most religious people do not act solely upon their religious views. However, it is not wrong to act upon religious views unless those views hurt others.
First, I agree with what you've said, but there have been laws made that benefit religions other than Christianity. I would ask that we keep it general for the type of religion because the separation of church and state is not directed at any particular religion.
Then going back into the legal aspect of this matter. A law will always be ruled unconstitutional if it imposes "undue restrictions upon the rights enumerated within the Free Exercise Clause." No law can be passed if its only purpose is to restrict a certain type of religion. However, if a law has another secular purpose and happens to restrict a religion, it will have to pass the "Compelling Interest Test." Basically this just reinforces the law's secular purpose, and is not established to restrict religion.
Some examples of these types of laws: a law that outlaws the use of illegal hallucinogenic drugs for religious practices (just because it is a religious practice does not mean it can ignore what is illegal or not)or a law that prevents human sacrifice for religious purposes (the Courts have enough compelling interest to justify saving human lives).
Does this clear up any questions that you guys have? I'm here to help and I'd like to see this thread continue in the future. If you guys have other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. I have really enjoyed answering the questions.
First, I agree with what you've said, but there have been laws made that benefit religions other than Christianity. I would ask that we keep it general for the type of religion because the separation of church and state is not directed at any particular religion.
I know, I just assumed we were talking about Christianity. In general though, I think there have been laws to restrict people of a religion. Which are also unfair.
