Do think church and state should be seperated? I do wether it be Christians, Jews, Atheists, Muslims, Buddhism, or Hinduism. Whats your opinion on Obama making the Catholic church provide health care (birth control)?
As long as they pay their taxes just like everyone else.
Churches don't pay taxes. It's a tax exempt thing. Even though they still use resources payed for by taxes which is why it's argued that they should.
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." -George Carlin
No, even if they pay their taxes; why would the attribute of them doing what every single organization is doing give them the right to spread more of their perfidious creed into an arena that is already fraught with mountains of challenges and complexities? We don't need more prejudice and narrow minded players.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Churches are allowed to get involved in politics, but the government is now allowed to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise of religion.
It's wrong for the government to pass laws respecting the establishment of religion, such as the ban on gay-marriage due to homosexuality being frowned upon in the bible. However, it's okay for church groups to have a say when it comes to laws - as long as the laws aren't based on their religion.
I know it sounds a bit crazy, because it's hard to imagine a church supporting a cause that isn't backed by religious views. As long as a law isn't founded on religion, it doesn't go against the first amendment. For example, if a church decided that the government should send food to poor countries, it's okay for the church to push for such an action to take place. If the church decided that the government should also hand out bibles, then it would be an issue, because the church would be going against the first amendment if they did so, which is not okay.
Church groups can have a say in politics as much as any group, but the government can not establish laws respecting religion, which means laws can not be based off of religion. The ban on gay marriage, for example, is unconstitutional, because it's based off the idea that homosexuality is wrong according to the bible. This is an example of the government establishing a law respecting religion.
I know it sounds a bit crazy, because it's hard to imagine a church supporting a cause that isn't backed by religious views.
That's the main thing most of us are worried about when religion and politics are mentioned in the same breathe. It probably would be ok if religious authorities partook in politics, but without their non-secular views permeating such activity. But what are the chances that it won't?
Whats your opinion on Obama making the Catholic church provide health care (birth control)?
Obama wants to make sure that Catholic employers must pay healthcare which covers contraceptives. Contraceptives should NOT, NOT, NOT, (FUU)* be provided by insurance. I'll get to that later though. It would be unconstitutional for Obama to allow Christian employers to remain exempt from having to pay for insurance, or exempt from paying for insurance that covers contraceptives, because that group would be gaining special treatment based off the fact that it's a religious organization. It's still INCREDIBLY stupid, however, to force insurance companies to pay for contraceptives.
Contraceptives are cheap. There is NO reason they should be provided for free. It would NOT decrease the number of teen pregnancies or STDs, because nobody decides not to use a condom because they're too expensive. EVERYONE can afford to buy contraceptives. The only people who might have a hard time paying for contraceptives are young kids.
* - It's at this moment I became so tense at the president's absolute stupidity that I pulled a muscle, and suffered pain. God, I really hate the president.
That's the main thing most of us are worried about when religion and politics are mentioned in the same breathe. It probably would be ok if religious authorities partook in politics, but without their non-secular views permeating such activity. But what are the chances that it won't?
Well, if I understand what you said on the first page correctly, we may be, somewhat, on the same page as to what the role of government is, and what it means for church and state to be separate.
I think most of you guys are missing the point of the discussion here.
Religion and politics isn't quite the same thing as the concept of the separation of church and state, which refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state, which means the state has taking over the social roles of the church, leading to a generally secularized public sphere. Typically, it would mean that the State and Church aren't link and the head of the state is not the head of an official religion.
What was the term again.....ah yes. Caesaropapism.
The separation of Church and State and the concept of using religion in politics might overlap a little, but they aren't the same.
The government can not limit the church's role in expressing political opinion. The church, as well as every person and organization, is allowed to express themselves freely.
Well, if I understand what you said on the first page correctly, we may be, somewhat, on the same page as to what the role of government is, and what it means for church and state to be separate.
I should probably think we are on the same side of the fence.
The government can not limit the church's role in expressing political opinion. The church, as well as every person and organization, is allowed to express themselves freely.
Agreed, but of course they should enforce the differences between just expressing views and directly influencing policies. Of course, political discourse and activity for religious institutions would depend rather heavily on their ability to resist the temptation to bring in dogma.
Agreed, but of course they should enforce the differences between just expressing views and directly influencing policies. Of course, political discourse and activity for religious institutions would depend rather heavily on their ability to resist the temptation to bring in dogma.
I'm not exactly sure I understand what you're saying. What do you mean when you say they should enforce the differences between merely expressing views and directly influencing policies? Keep in mind that the government can not treat organizations differently based on whether they're religious or not. Anything the government does to religious organizations must also be applied to other organizations.
When it comes to the government passing policies supported by religious institutions, I figure that we must determine the following:
1. Is the policy solely based on a religious idea? 2. What support is there for the policy minus the religious support. 3. Is the non-religious support for the policy justified in passing said policy?
If a religious organization somehow convinces a politician to push for a new law, we must determine whether the law is based off of religious principles. If so, those principles must be scrapped. After the religious principles are scrapped, all that should remain are non-religious arguments that support the law. If there are none, then the law is unconstitutional and that should be the end of the debate. If there are non-religious arguments that support the law, then the merits of those arguments must be examined accordingly.
If a politician bans gay-marriage based off the fact that gay-marriage goes against God's will, then that argument must be scrapped. If that's the only basis for the law, then the debate should end. However, the politician may bring up the argument that homosexuals are irresponsible as parents. If the politician does this, then the point must be debated. The law can't be immediately scrapped because there might be a religious bias.
Let's use another example as to why we can't instantly discredit support merely for having religious influence. There are some religions that advocate the use of marijuana. A politician may bring up that marijuana should be legalized because it is a spiritual way of worshiping God. Again, we must do away with the religious reason. If the politician has no other reason to legalize marijuana, the debate should be dropped. However, if the politician says that legalizing marijuana will result in less crime, better law enforcement, etc., then those arguments must be examined and debated.
Good grief, it came out all jumbled and such. Basically what I was saying, was a carbon copy of what you mentioned; religious instituitions are free to express their political views, however parochial they are, but the government should not be pressured into passing laws solely based on Divine justification espoused by such groups.
Good grief, it came out all jumbled and such. Basically what I was saying, was a carbon copy of what you mentioned; religious instituitions are free to express their political views, however parochial they are, but the government should not be pressured into passing laws solely based on Divine justification espoused by such groups.
Oh, right, that helps clear things out quite a bit. : )
As a tenant of a minority (and oft misunderstood) faith, I believe that the separation of Church and State should remain in tact, and that the rules Obama set for health care were fair. The companies did not have to be a part of them. It was a choice, but they didn't want that choice to be an option.
I think that the separation of church and state needs to stand until certain prosyletization (sp?) based faiths (specifically Christianity) can share the stage without having a chip on their shoulder. Freedom of Religion to some Christians seems to mean Freedom to Stomp All Over Other Faiths Because Their Faith Says They Are The Only Faith. That's where the real problem lies. Using your faith's tenants as an excuse to try and deny other faiths their rights is never acceptable, but you'd be surprised how many times I've heard the excuse of "Allowing their faith representation is unfair to my faith because my faith says there's no other true faith!"
I'm not kidding. When I was a kid I asked to add a representation of my faith to a holiday setup we had in my school cafeteria. I went to a po-dunk little place that ignored separation laws because so few of us weren't Christian. They got a little afraid I would raise a stink about it if they didn't let me do it, so I added my piece. A day later a mother came in and said that adding my faith representation infringed on her rights to represent her faith because her faith stated my faith was wrong.
Take the catholics in the middle ages. The church and the state where both run by an arch-bishop or the Pope. Power hungry church figures taxed and taxed making them more powerful and the people poorer still. This was just one of the causes for the dark ages.
Since the government is getting attacking/limiting religion it's technically breaking the constitution.
The governme- Oh wait, you won't ever respond to anything we say. I won't bother actually trying to explain to you how this view is incorrect and I'll just move on.
Take the catholics in the middle ages. The church and the state where both run by an arch-bishop or the Pope.
This would depend on when you are talking about...and no, at most the church had a heavy influence on matters of state. Usually the ruler was recognized by the church, at which he then ruled with their influence.
Power hungry church figures taxed and taxed making them more powerful and the people poorer still.
Not really. The church was all inclusive. Everything revolved around it. The church never set taxes, that would be the dukes and kings.
This was just one of the causes for the dark ages.
No, cause of the "dark ages" (they weren't really dark even in a historical sense) was the fall of the Roman Empire and subsequent invasions.
