Separation of Church and State?

[berlinlife06]

I wonder why we believe that there is a separation of Church and State when in reality, that is not true. And I'm going to point at one issue: Gay Marriage. The reasons argued by those who oppose it, are based only on religious beliefs. As citizens of a nation, gay and straight people should have EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS, don't you think? So, Marriage is basically a CIVIL contract, as many don't get married in a church, but in City Hall. So, why deny the same basic rights as any couple to gay people, if the State's obligation is to protect the rights of EVERY CITIZEN? What do you think?

 

[dong]

Well, we've covered the "gay rights" and "gay marriage" discussions in detail on the two threads by that name...within which the points of the -lack- of separation of church and state have surfaced.

But this thread focuses primarily on the latter, so I'll have at it: AFAIK, separation of church and state was constitutionally ideal, but historically speaking this is impossible- the laws were founded on the religious axiologies that the people who made them were born and raised on. Hence the morality that the law reflected could be arguably religiously motivated.

But even this doesn't necessarily mean that religion and the state are linked- since the principles behind the morality that the religion underpins are not exclusive (it would be pretty darn problematic if they were: "No, YOUR religion can't disapprove of murder because MY religion does!"), even if traditional interpretations of some religions entail that the religions ARE exclusive.

The main problem here is that more recently, it seems, there has been a resurgence of religion, especially since 9/11. Question is, is this an absolute revival, is it relative and subject to media focus, is it a small bunch of fundamentalists using loudspeakers, or is the fundamentalist population growing, or what?

Regardless of what it might or mightn't be, it has to be said that the net effect is apparent: religion and its surrounding issues are, in a meaningful way, being placed on the map very clearly, since we're all discussing them now. And so whilst the age of secular humanism might still prevail in some limited ways, the religious motivations for political decisions are increasing in incidence and most importantly visibility. Most recently, everybody has finally noticed the way it has taken a concrete hold of politics itself.

I would say that this is a slightly separate concern from the point about historical roots I raised earlier- because I think the recent manifestation is more a social phenomena than, say...part of a cornerstone feature of the society it takes part in.

 

[xboxundone]

ultimately you cant seperate church and state when the United States where based with the foundation of Christianity.

 

[kida]

... AFAIK, separation of church and state was constitutionally ideal, but historically speaking this is impossible- the laws were founded on the religious axiologies that the people who made them were born and raised on. Hence the morality that the law reflected could be arguably religiously motivated.

But even this doesn't necessarily mean that religion and the state are linked- since the principles behind the morality that the religion underpins are not exclusive...

The main problem here is that more recently, it seems, there has been a resurgence of religion, especially since 9/11. Question is, is this an absolute revival, is it relative and subject to media focus, is it a small bunch of fundamentalists using loudspeakers, or is the fundamentalist population growing, or what?

I don't think the recent perception that religion is playing more of a role in politics is necessarily a sign of Americans becoming more religious. Instead, I think Christians in America are finding that the morals that were generally accepted by society aren't being accepted any longer. Christians didn't have to get political about abortion and gay marriage because they weren't issues before.

It's kind of the same thing that's happening in Muslim nations: younger generations want access to Western culture, including music and movies. Older generations (and younger people who are more devout) fear that these things are destructive to their culture and their moral principles, so there is a backlash against it.

 

[HannerAnna]

i don't think it's really possible to separate church and state because if someone's faith is really important to them then it shapes what they think about every aspect of life.

 

[TheoryAll]

The united states was founded by Puritans, who wants to be a puritan? I don't think it would be impossible to separate church and state. I think the connection between church and state makes room for atrocities in the name of god in stead of level headedness in the name of logic and reason. Just one opinion among many.

 

[AugustineJurnior]

I wonder why we believe that there is a separation of Church and State when in reality, that is not true. And I'm going to point at one issue: Gay Marriage. The reasons argued by those who oppose it, are based only on religious beliefs. As citizens of a nation, gay and straight people should have EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS, don't you think? So, Marriage is basically a CIVIL contract, as many don't get married in a church, but in City Hall. So, why deny the same basic rights as any couple to gay people, if the State's obligation is to protect the rights of EVERY CITIZEN? What do you think?

False on many counts but I will adduce 3
1) many converts will tell you that it was their rock-solid conviction that abortion and homosexual acts are wrong that preceded and lead to their conversion to the religion that always claimed that.
2) You say with no basis that for example there are no non-religious or even atheist groups against abortion. SO WROOONG you are

SECULAR PRO-lIFE


PRO-LIFE ALLIANCE OF GAYS AND LESBIANS +
HUMAN RIGHTS START WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
PRO-LIFE OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS
BOARD CERTIFIED. PROFESSIONAL.
MEDICAL EXPERTS IN THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT SINCE 1973

Democrats for Life

PRogressive Anti-abortion Uprising

Feminsts for Life
3) --and this makes me think there might be something off about you. The FOunders to a man despised homosexuality far as I know
Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1781, Query 14; cf. 1903, 1:226-227).

Homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws…,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans know that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482)

And don't compound your error by saying it criminalizes being a homosexual. It criminalizes the act, asa "ilthy rot upon the very foudnations of society."

 

[mark francis]

I wonder why we believe that there is a separation of Church and State when in reality, that is not true. And I'm going to point at one issue: Gay Marriage. The reasons argued by those who oppose it, are based only on religious beliefs. As citizens of a nation, gay and straight people should have EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS, don't you think? So, Marriage is basically a CIVIL contract, as many don't get married in a church, but in City Hall. So, why deny the same basic rights as any couple to gay people, if the State's obligation is to protect the rights of EVERY CITIZEN? What do you think?

Promotion of immorality is not a right, it is a sin.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Promotion of immorality is not a right, it is a sin.

No one is promoting immorality as policy other than Christians.

If you ever feel like a real ,debate instead of the shit you post -----

On Jesus dying for Christians, from a moral perspective.

It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.

Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

There is no way that Christians parents would teach their children to use a scapegoat.

Good morals and Jesus speak against the messianic concept and bids us pick up our crosses and follow him.

 

[mark francis]

No one is promoting immorality as policy other than Christians.

Then thank God for Christians.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Then thank God for Christians.

Yes. We need more examples of evil people who live in fear of having a LGBTQ+ child.