Personally, I think that there should.

The reason I bring this up (other than it being interesting)is because my MIL was telling us today how she is protesting at a meeting tomorrow because there is some branch of our (local?) government wanting to remove prayer and things of a religious nature from its order of things.

I disagree with her. I think that unless a government can incorporate EVERY Religion into whatever it is they are saying, then it should not be said. And since such a thing would practically be impossible…then, well you get the idea.

A government should be unbiased in terms of religion. Yet…it is still there (proof of this is when a President says “God bless, etc…). So it is obvious that not everyone wants a separation of church and state, because people still want to hear religion in politics. I am guessing that the reason for this is because if the ‘correct religion’ is dictating how the government runs things, then God will see us through and the correct choices will be made. In fact, I had to sit through a church sermon where the pastor talked about the evil of the separation of church and state. It is with this pastor and others from this church who are going to make their opinions known at some meeting tomorrow.

I also agree with taking it out of the schools, justice systems etc…on the grounds that one religion should not be favored above another. Now I am not saying that people cannot pray where they want to or consult God before making a decision, I am just saying that instead of broadcasting it and making it a governmental process, it should be a personal choice that has no say in terms of politics.

So what are you thoughts on the separation of church and state?

My thoughts... The concept of "separation of church and state" is really based on an interpretation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as neither of those documents contains a literal declaration that church and state must be separate.

In fact, the wording in these documents, far from excluding religion from government, was intended to protect those who practiced religions outside of any official "state religion," such as England had.

So, technically, when a President says "god bless, blah blah blah," he's not really favoring one religion over another, as the "god" bit can be interpreted as one sees fit.

Even as an atheist, I can view the "god" bit as being merely a cultural affectation, in the same way that I can enjoy the federally recognized holiday of Christmas as a cultural rather than religious holiday. The expression "god bless you" is really pretty benign stuff.

It's when religious dogma finds its way into politics, that I most strenuously object. And that's when a politician says things like: "god demands that you do this or that – in this or that manner."

Government sanction of the promoting of one set of religious beliefs over another in such a way comes dangerously close to establishing the sort of state religion that our Founding Fathers strove to avoid.

So, as to your mother-in-law's protest of her branch of local government wanting to remove prayer and things of a religious nature from its order of things... If the prayers favor a specific religion (mentioning "Jesus" or "Allah" or "Wotan" by name) then I say they're out of line and have no place in a government meeting.

But if they merely give a nod of respect to some unspecific divine overseer, then I'd have little objection to them. I'd still think they were silly, but not offensive.

-- Nephele

Ask your mother-in-law if she believes we should seek the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Many conservatives today do, and refer to anything else as "judicial activism." If she says yes, bring her attention to an 1803 letter from Thomas Jefferson explaining what the First Amendment was meant to do:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation ... the_phrase

SS

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's so simple.

If one is of a particular religious mindset, the beliefs and morals they take from their religious practices are going to influence their political decisions one way or the other; that simply can't be helped, IMO, if one is truly dedicated to a particular religion or spiritual mindset.

I have no problem with politicians mentioning God (as in "God bless America" and whatnot), but I do have a problem when laws are passed (creationism in public science classes, prayer in public schools, etc...). Some of these laws - particularly the ones I mentioned - serve no purpose other than to violate the church/state barrier.

Very good points have been brought up.

I suppose that when a leader says God Bless, it can be overlooked, though I still feel he should say something along the lines of "Be blessed" than actually saying 'God" since I have always seen it as favoring one religion.

As for if a person is a firm believer and their life and decisions do come from their religion or religious perceptive (which can sometimes hurt more than help), then that is fine- so long as that person does not expect everyone else to join in and start singing Kumbaya. I think that religion and personality should be personal and not directed or exploited by the government.

Starving Student…I read that article. Very interesting, and brings many things to light. The quotes within it doubt I could agree with more than I already do.

Eh, I see nothing wrong with "God bless"; it's not intended as an insult or anything, and is fairly common in my area.

I can see where it would be slightly annoying if you don't believe, though.

As an atheist I found nothing bad in ''god bless'', maybe because it does not mean much more than be blessed just another way to say that ^^ For the religious perspective of how to handle the nation... Well, I should say; If your religion isn't against law, you have the freedom to belive in it. If you want that everybody be in your religion, better stay in your church!

I will say this: If a presidential candidate happens to be an atheist, the likelihood of that candidate earning my vote has already increased by 25%.

I think Midi raised some very good points here. A government or state should - in a country where you have freedom of religion (and not, for example, a (mandatory) state church) - represent all citizens, no matter what they do or do not believe. A school, judicial system or government should not as an institution openly prefer a religion over other worldviews, I think. Individuals can choose their own religion - whether it is christianity, islam, the greek pantheon, or whatever - and go to churches, pray, etc. But laws, schools, policies and other public services, facilities, and institutions should, I think, not openly support one religion (or exclude one or more religions) as they are supposed to be there for all citizens.

Someone mentioned that you can't separate church and state, because you cannot separate his or her religion from the politician (or something along those lines). People will be influenced and inspired by their worldview, and this is ok. If a politician doesn't represent or defend what you, as a voter, think is important, than you vote for someone else. Granted, this is probably a lot easier in a multi-party system than the American two party system. However, once chosen, the representatives in my opinion need to keep in mind that they represent their voters but also that they have to make policies that fit with the freedom of worldviews that are (usually) stated in the constitution. Trying to push your religion/worldview onto others in a country where freedom of religion is a fundamental right is not ok. That would require a change of the constitution, I think.

By the way, a separation of church and state doesn't necessarily mean that a state never can support a church with special policies or with grants or whatever. It can do so if that church is of special historic importance (example: to keep old churches with special architecture from falling to ruins). If there are good reasons for something like that, and it doesn't harm other worldviews, than it could be done I suppose.

About the "God bless...". The way I always understood things, 'god' is the christian name for the one and only devine power, like 'allah' is the muslim name, and 'jahweh' the judeic name. To them those names refer to something they believe in. To an atheist I suppose that 'god' either refers to the one and only supreme being christians believe in (but they don't), and/or has no reference at all. Yes, other religions can interpret 'god' to refer to their divines beings as well (which some believers will and others won't do), but to me it seems to favour one religion over other worldviews. Maybe you'd easier include everyone by not saying something like "god bless".

Just some of my considerations on the subject.

Midi, were you referring to this Jeff guy again? If so, he's certainly keeping you busy (yet hopefully isn't giving you a headache)!

Yes it was Pastor jeff, but the sermon I refer to was months and months ago. I only remembered it because that was the day he was sprouting all sorts of nonsense and it pissed me off. Since talking to my MIL i have heard nothing more from the church.

For a little bit there, I thought I was being a complete and utter jerk for thinking that government officals should not say things like God Bless to people because of it showing a perference for Christianity, so it is nice to know you understand where I am coming from in that regard.

I think that just because you belong to a religion, does not mean that religion should be used to sway others. Religion is a choice. If the government uses it (for whatever purpose) then it makes it something that it really has no business being. I would no longer see it in terms of the individual but just another marketing scheme used my politicans to gain a vote.

As for praying in schools...why should they? That sounds like brain washing to me, to force a child to pray when they may not want to. It is easy to say "well if a kid doesnt believe they can fake it" but the point is that they should not have to.

I also think that if they are going to teach Creationism in school, then they should also teach all other forms of Creation Theories as well. In fact, why not make a class called Creation Theories?

I understand why Darwinism is taught in school It is science, and quite honestly a fact in my way of understanding (though the whole we evolved from apes i will never believe).

As for the USA's Pledge, I am torn with that one. Though I do think that it seems to favor one over others, at the same time I would not want to change it. however, the pledge and money are two great examples that though America claims to have no religion, it seems obvious that it has a preference.

Yes the term God and be viewed in many ways, but the majority of time, most people will view it in the Christian since of the word.

Agreed!

I prefer open preferance to concealed preferance. The obvious point here is that the USA will not ever soon have a Muslim president. The thing I disagree with is that I feel schools are entitled to have a religious aspect to their education if the school so chooses, but that to get state money this should be either optional for the student or absent entirely.

The problem here is that not making laws to promote or exclude religions allows cults like Scientology to have equal footing with more established religions. There's all kinds of arguements for which is more damaging in the modern context but being strictly fair about it, Scientology is no more forced upon it's members than any other faith is in the western world.

Apes are the most convenient and supported group out there really, unless you want to skip back to reptiles and amphibians.

I voted yes, church and state should be seperate.

There is a time and place for religion and a time and a place for education, and unless it's a faith school (we have RC and Anglican schools here), which I feel are wrong, then I firmly feel that religion should be handled outside school hours (unless of course it's religious education lessons and then all faiths should be covered in as unbiased a way as possible).

If people wish for their children to have a religion based education, by all means enrol your kids in a school that will provide that, but not every school should be given carte blanche to just assume that everyone wants their kids raised that way. State schools should be just that... run by the State without the insidious finger of religion being forced into the syllabus and rammed down the throats of impressionable little children, filling their virgin brains with rubbish about sin and salvation. That removes the freedom of choice that democracy needs in order to function properly.

Religion also has no place in politics, but then I'm in the UK and our politicians seem to be fairly secular in the main... not saying they are not people of faith, it's just that you never hear about it, which I feel is as it should be. The last people I remember that mentioned religion were Tony Blair when he converted to Catholicism, and I think so did Anne Widdecoombe (though I think that both had retired from public office before doing so).

The biggest thing that scares me about religion in politics is the way that some people will use religion to further their own agendas at the expense of reason and common sense... like with Prop 8 in California... I was disgusted that it was passed, and it seemed to be saying that only certain people were "good enough" to get married and everyone else could get lost.

Totally grotesque, not to mention archaic, thinking

If I evloved from another animal...I would rather it be a bat...preferably the vampire bat. Or wolves. I will take wolves for a close second.