Church and State

[marxandlennon]

The recent death of Jerry Falwell has triggered debates about the impact of his policies on the American government. My question is, what purpose (if any) does religion have in the running of the country? Should there be Jefferson's "wall of seperation" between church and state, or should religious groups like Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition play a role in government?

[devonin]

Any time someone wants to argue for the involvement of church in matters of state, I say "Which church"?

Do you give every faith, religion, cult and church some direct representation in government? Seats in the house? Based on what? Number of worshippers? Some incredibly misguided idea that there is actually one -right- church to whom the state should listen?

Or should church groups have to be like every other lobby group that exists, and simply have the same rights as any citizen to petition the government to listen to the desires of the constituants empowering that government?

[Kilroy_x]

Here's an idea. Let's get the hell rid of government. Marxists complain that when power and money are in the same hands it results in chaos, Secularists argue that when religion and power are in the same place it results in chaos, Free Market Capitalists argue that when power and intervention combine it results in chaos; AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE THINGS IS TRUE!

You can either continue complaining about something which is broken by definition and build elaborate systems around the problem, or you can just get rid of the problem. Is this really such a crazy idea?

[ToshX]

Hate to keep it short in CT, but I think any religion shouldn't be a part of any government. At least, not the US government, considering we're supposed to be free and aren't forced to believe in anything.

[sgkoneko]

The recent death of Jerry Falwell has triggered debates about the impact of his policies on the American government. My question is, what purpose (if any) does religion have in the running of the country? Should there be Jefferson's "wall of seperation" between church and state, or should religious groups like Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition play a role in government?

No group/religion should play a role in its government.
And the fact that sooooo many companies and churches get such direct input is the reason why I can understand why anarchists are who they are.

The democracy should be run by the people, not by some group, not by a religion.

There are some good principles that should be applied to government from groups and religions, but that doesn't mean they should run it.
If the majority of people agree with these principles, then it should be implemented. But churches and businesses should not get special treatment or more say because they have the money to get their way.

The decisions of a country's leaders should also not be based on any duty/bribe to these organizations.
That is NOT the way this country was founded and it should never have turned into what it is now. I think we should start over quite frankly.

[GuidoHunter]

The democracy should be run by the people, not by some group, not by a religion.

The democracy should be run by everybody.

And it's only naive to think that "the people" don't belong to churches and organizations; you can't separate the person from his beliefs and affiliations.

Religions don't run America as is. They influence people, sure, but there's neither anything wrong with that nor any way to stop it.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Religion is such a big controversial thing. I just wish that the creators of every religion could meet each other in one big room and peacefully debate until one universal religion could be established. I know people think I'm crazy for a universal religion, but I bet if these people had met one day, they would have created the better version of the religion I always think about. Aside from my crazy thoughts, I don't believe that religion should even think about tangling in government. It's atleast legitimate to base yourself off of religion, but religion itself in government is out of the question. The seperation of Power and money (Marxist) and separation of religion and money (Secularists) have the right intentions. Unless every single person in the world agrees on how to use money and religion, no person or group should have extreme power. I know that the government always seems to be trying to destroy society because of the people in it, but think about the way these people are elected and what the government's intentions are. Even if the government seems to or even tries to destroy society at times, its intention is to peacefully debate for solutions.

[Kilroy_x]

A properly functional democracy only insures that the smallest possible minority will bear the cost of humanities stupidity. And there's never been a properly functional democracy.

[sgkoneko]

The democracy should be run by everybody.

And it's only naive to think that "the people" don't belong to churches and organizations; you can't separate the person from his beliefs and affiliations.

Religions don't run America as is. They influence people, sure, but there's neither anything wrong with that nor any way to stop it.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com


What do you think people consist of? Everybody is the same as 'the people'. Unless you think dogs and cats should have a say?

I said 'if the majority of people agree with principles of churches and organizations, then and only then, should it be integrated into the ideals/laws of our government.' That doesn't at all say anywhere that 'the people' do or don't belong to churches and organizations.

And yes of course religion influences people and I guess some of that is a good thing, some of it bad, but everyone in an organization or church isn't going to have a unified outlook on life. The church getting a say in the government when the people who might belong to it get less isn't fair. Churches don't speak for the people. That's what a government is supposed to do. It's supposed to represent its people's decisions/ideals/morals/rights.

[Kilroy_x]

Ultimately the problem is the Government doesn't do a good job either. The further away from an individual that choices are being made, the less likely it will benefit any given individual or group of individuals.

[redgun]

if we get a president that is very reliogues he should be removed. If he belives strongly in a group that is racist to a other racist or more he should be removed. If we dont remove these type of ppl there will be more chaos the uaslly there and we dont need more chaos

[devonin]

And who determines what constitutes "Too religious" or "Too Racist"?

Is someone who crosses the street when ten big burly black men are walking towards them at night a sufficient racist to be forcibly removed from an elected position?

What's too religious? Going to church on sunday? Praying? Believing in God at all?

I mean, the extreme extremes are really easy to identify, but you can't start advocating the "removal" of undesireables when there is a very slippery slope involved in your definition.

[AOL_blows911]

The democracy should be run by the people, not by some group, not by a religion.

Well, theres where I see the problem.

To get their ideals realized and have some say about how the law treats them, people make or join groups, then rally / protest / whatever to get their views known. The larger that group gets, the less it starts listening to the individual member and the more it listens to group leaders. Eventualy, what was a group that represented a smaller portion of people's beliefs now is controlled by a few high-up members that usualy pay little attention to the average person.

Personaly, I would have no problem with religion being involved in government if this where an all-christian country. Not necessarily christian, but I'm sure you see the point - if the country is an all-whatever religion-country, then everyone would understand and follow religious laws, and the need for an actual government would be very small. However, there is not a single country on Earth made up of all one single religion. As long as we have diversity, I think no group should hold influence over the government.

[Kilroy_x]

However, there is not a single country on Earth made up of all one single religion.

The Vatican

[WeissPraline]

Religion should have NO hand in the government.

I'd almost like most leaders to be Agnostic or Atheist, to be frank.

Each religion has it's ups and downs, but if one religion could control of government, there would be a LOT of backlash; I'd almost say it would be a 2nd Civil war for America.

[devonin]

Religion should have NO hand in the government.

I'd almost like most leaders to be Agnostic or Atheist, to be frank.

Each religion has it's ups and downs, but if one religion could control of government, there would be a LOT of backlash; I'd almost say it would be a 2nd Civil war for America.

If one religion's followers were able to be elected to the house, senate and presidency sufficient to have a firm majority across the board, that would be a strong indicator that the country seems to -want- religion and politics to go hand in hand. I'll note that his hasn't happened.

Politicians being require to be agnostics or atheists doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. Why should they? Citizens of America are allowed to practice any religion they like, and forbidding religious people from holding office is a cut-and-dry violation of their constitutional rights.

[WeissPraline]

Politicians being require to be agnostics or atheists doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. Why should they? Citizens of America are allowed to practice any religion they like, and forbidding religious people from holding office is a cut-and-dry violation of their constitutional rights.

Never said that had to be. I said I'd almost LIKE for them to be agnostic or atheist; never said I think they should be forced to be those. =]

[devonin]

But why? Do you think that a religious person is incapable of acting in a way that perhaps they find somewhat disagreeable if that is what their elected constituents want?

I have immense respect for the politicians in Canada who, when there was the big push here to legalise gay marriage (which we did) came forward and explicitly stated "I personally think it is abhorant and inappropriate, but as my constituents support it, I will support it with my vote" and just as much respect for the couple who seriously considered resigning their position because they were against it, in a riding where the people were in support of it.

There's a very big difference between "Religion and State" and "Church and State"

[WeissPraline]

But why? Do you think that a religious person is incapable of acting in a way that perhaps they find somewhat disagreeable if that is what their elected constituents want?

I have immense respect for the politicians in Canada who, when there was the big push here to legalise gay marriage (which we did) came forward and explicitly stated "I personally think it is abhorant and inappropriate, but as my constituents support it, I will support it with my vote" and just as much respect for the couple who seriously considered resigning their position because they were against it, in a riding where the people were in support of it.

There's a very big difference between "Religion and State" and "Church and State"

Why? Because that's just how I feel. I personally feel that I'd rather have our leaders not be religious, just because I feel that most religions have...I can't think of a way to word it. I guess you could say most religions have practices that might get in the way of being a 'good' leader.

NOW. Do NOT get me wrong, you can be a VERY great leader and be religious. JFK was catholic, and honestly, I'd have to say he was one of the best presidents the US has ever had.

That's just MY opinion. What I think. I can't really, nor do I wish, to explain every little detail of why I think that- it's just what I think.

[sgkoneko]

But why? Do you think that a religious person is incapable of acting in a way that perhaps they find somewhat disagreeable if that is what their elected constituents want?

I have immense respect for the politicians in Canada who, when there was the big push here to legalise gay marriage (which we did) came forward and explicitly stated "I personally think it is abhorant and inappropriate, but as my constituents support it, I will support it with my vote" and just as much respect for the couple who seriously considered resigning their position because they were against it, in a riding where the people were in support of it.

There's a very big difference between "Religion and State" and "Church and State"

Religious people tend to take their religious beliefs into their opinions and judgements. Imagine if a radical muslim got into office. It's their political belief that people should die so they can go to heaven. Is that good for this country? A lot of religious beliefs may be in the majority's opinion, but that's not to say it's good for the country as a whole. Agnostics, not atheists, are fairly balanced people or people who don't care about religion, they will base thier judgements on the actions of people around them and life experience, not what their religion says. Atheists are not a good choice either, because quite frankly atheism is a religion whether they want to admit it or not. They *believe* their is no God. They are a group of people with a belief. They have organization, they are a religion. Plus atheists would probably outlaw religion.

[devonin]

Religious people tend to take their religious beliefs into their opinions and judgements.
Non-religious people bring their non-religious beliefs and opinions into their judgement. You're doing it right now, and do so quite egregiously in the remainder of your post. Stones->Glass houses.

Imagine if a radical muslim got into office. It's their political belief that people should die so they can go to heaven. Is that good for this country?
Last I checked, you need to campaign to be elected anything. Generally when you campaign you are required to describe your platform, and your beliefs on a variety of important topics of the day. If someone ran fro president on the platform of "Kill the infidel, Martyrs are good, Women must go covered head to toe, and if you steal, I'll chop your hand off" Pardon me for saying that I really don't think America is going to elect such a person.

And if someone manages to successfully "Fake" a legitimate platform enough to get elected, if they then started trying to act in some absurd way, they would suffer a vote of no-confidence and be impeached.

You're trying to point to an absurd extreme end that has no business being brought up in a reasonable discussion of the situation.

Agnostics, not atheists, are fairly balanced people or people who don't care about religion, they will base thier judgements on the actions of people around them and life experience, not what their religion says.
Actually that's quite untrue. I'd say a good number of people who call themselves agnostics don't even actually know what agnosticism entails, and even if we assume they all do, how does a -belief- that questions of metaphysics and religion are inherantly unknowable by humanity somehow automatically mean that they are "fairly balanced"?

Atheists are not a good choice either, because quite frankly atheism is a religion whether they want to admit it or not. They *believe* their is no God. They are a group of people with a belief. They have organization, they are a religion.
Atheism is not a religion. Simply having a belief in something (In this case, that there is no evidence for the existence of the divine) make them a religion? I believe all kinds of things, does that mean I have a religion based on my belief that gravity is a universal constant? Do I have a religion based on the fact that I think broccoli is gross? Of course not.

Simply "believing" something doesn't make it a religion. Also...I'm unaware of the existence of a "Church of Atheism" organisation to which all atheists belong. Last I checked, when you don't believe in the divine, you tend not to see the point in gathering together all the people who share that thought to...what? Stand around and go "Yup...no God..."

Plus atheists would probably outlaw religion.I have no idea where you get this idea from, but wow...that's a pretty stunning misrepresentation of atheism. I'd say that more religions would be outlawed by other religions than would be outlawed by atheists.