Church & State Separation

I agree that common sense should be used in this area. In general, I want to see as much separation as possible, but our culture should also be taken into consideration.

That said, I agree completely with Wesley Clark who said as a candidate for POTUS: "Separation of Church and State is not to protect the Church from the State, but to protect the State from the Church."

I agree with most of this statement but if we are to improve our schools we must be able to include religious schools in public funding. We can do this without funding religion simply by giving parents the funding and letting them choose the schools.

I personally agree with you Frank. I see no reason why the amount of tax money a parent/s would put into the public school system be refunded to the parent/s to help the parent/s pay for non public schooling if they choose. However, I am against any more than that amount going to the parent/s because then you get into the whole " my money should not be going to support religious instiutions" debate, which I personally agree with those who don't want their tax money going to support religious institutions whether they be educational or not.

First, you've spelled "guarantee" wrong, so regardless of my opinion that's got to change.

Second, I take some issue with the idea of giving equal access to all religions. Just logistically, that's a nightmare. Just off the top of my head, good numbers of Americans practice Christianity (and lets not forget that there are hundreds of different Christian sects), Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Ba'hai, Voodoo, Satanism, Wicca, Neopaganism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Jainism, Scientology, Taoism, Jehovah's Witness, and Christian Science, not to mention Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, and people of no particular opinion. Giving each of these groups (and the many others I've likely forgotten) equal access to public property is impossible unless that amount of access is equal to or very near zero. Additionally, given the outcry among certain groups about the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, I very much doubt that many Americans would be happy to see a Satanic or Voodoo symbol next to their Christmas Manger.

Now, that doesn't mean I'm among those advocating against things as innocuous as Christmas trees, but the only reason that sort of thing doesn't offend me personally is because I don't really see that particular example as a Christian symbol. In many ways it has transcended its Christian roots and become more of a cultural symbol than anything else. At the end of the day, however, I think it is and should remain within the purview of our courts to decide where the line between what is acceptable and what isn't lies.

Thank you for pointing out the spelling error, it has been corrected. Please understand that the scribe team was very busy when getting the site ready for launch and sometimes mistakes were overlooked.

I'd like to see far stronger separation of church and state than we have now; remove "In God We Trust" from money, official government documents and new monuments, and remove "...under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Restore "E Plurbius Unum" as the official national motto; it describes America beautifully: From Many, One. We are a nation of immigrants of all colors, religions, and styles, yet we can all unite and contribute to a national whole.

From Many, One.

But back to Church and State; the government should not at all endorse religious ideas. That said we are not an atheist state like the Soviet Union or China; we are a secular state; the government takes no position on religion.

Individual politicians can certainly reference God or get the support of churches as bases of political support, the government cannot endorse a religion, or religious concept such as God and/or gods.

I am going to agree to some extent with the above comment.

The phrase "under God" in the pledge was added during the cold war to differentiate us from the Soviet Union in the 50s if I recall correctly what I have read. I know it wasn't in the original version.

I, too, do not see a need for "In God we trust" on currency or other places.

That said, there are some expressions that are so much a part of our culture that I think it would do more harm to insist on total separation than to view it as toleration. Christmas trees and Easter displays are examples of such.

By the same token we should allow other cultural displays as they become part of our society.

What is important is that we make the distinction between culture and governing. There is no room, in my opinion, for religious dogma in legislation.

I completely agree; I myself am not even Christian but Christmas in America has become an American tradition; as distinct from but also including the religious aspects of it. I love the music and food and time with family.

Christmas trees, called Christmas trees, are alright in my book on public property so long as other holiday's things are also allowed.

I have a mostly Christian family, and I have warm memories of Christmas, so yes it is culturally good I believe to keep it around publicly to some extent. ("To some extent" meaning, don't make things exclusionary.)

I agree entirely. Banning religious symbols is absolutely ridiculous--as is the idea of religion being a basis for lawmaking in order to legislate morality. Religious debates need to be excluded from lawmaking.

I think 'separation' in the Constitution is intended precisely as a protection of religion from the state. Part of that protection might very obviously be protection of the state from being co-opted by a religious group. The Framers' focus, however, as with much in the Constitution, was on preventing tyranny in the religious sphere.

I'm a Christian, and I have no problem with Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc groups getting public funding for a secular enterprise if they compete on an equal footing with other groups. I think there's no Constitutional issue at all with school choice (works fine for religious colleges), and social welfare organizations (eg, drug rehab) should be funded or approved based on outcomes, not religious affiliation - even when religion is an integral part of services/treatment.

For a fundamental historical viewpoint, read Nathaniel Philbrick's "Mayflower." It is one of the best histories written in recent years, and gives a perspective on this issue that many modern Americans forget or never learned.

Europe was embroiled in religious wars all through the 16th and 17th centuries, and anybody willing to emigrate to the undeveloped shores of the New World usually had a very compelling reason to do so. The Pilgrims rejected the State religion of England, and in so doing laid themselves open to confiscation of property, imprisonment, and death. They did not emigrate to create a world of religious tolerance here in North America. They emigrated here to call the shots, and executed Quakers and Baptists for their religious views.

The central point about Church and State is that a state that adopts a religion is all too likely to suppress any view that disagrees with the orthodox one. That does not mean Christian vs Muslim, but Methodist vs Baptist. Most modern Evangelical Christians would have been cast out or executed in Colonial Massachusetts because their version of Christianity does not agree with what was acceptable at the time. Is that an America any of us wants to see? I suspect not, at least within the confines of the MWP.

Indeed, "agnostic heathens" are MWP when it comes to good governance, ruled by ethics and natural law. A principal maintained rigidly and concurrently, even as some of our MWP leaders serve as church elders. So this is a very doable distinction, in one's intellect. We prove it!

It's critical to the Republic's future, we beleive, to ensure no religion usurps the Constitution. Even in our Nation that is by vast majority Christian!

>"Separation of Church and State is not to protect the Church from the State, but to protect the State from the Church."

I strongly disagree - because of the danger that the State poses to the Church.
We do not often see that danger in this country because we have had the separation. Other countries have had to face the danger.

When the State is supporting the Church, the Church suffers tremendously. First, the Church loses its soul. In every country where the Church has been supported by the State, the Church becomes part of "keeping things the same". The Church starts to suppress those who see corruption and want to speak up about that. For example, 2000 years ago, a state supported church was part of executing someone who threw the corrupt money changers out of the building.

Secondly, the Church loses its moral authority. That means that it no longer offers anything to young people who want a standard to live up to. We see enough of that in many major denominations already. It is far worse in other countries.

Thirdly, the Church becomes simply another institution where sons can be installed to further the family wealth. So in history, you see the vast Papal holdings, the buying and selling of Bishop positions for the wealth. The result has been a major backlash against the Church including the changes during the French revolution, the modern Mexican Constitution, and even some of the stuff that happened under Communism.

It has worked for 200 years to keep the Church and State separate. Let's keep that up.

I did not mean to imply that I thought State control of the Church would be okay. I will grant all of the points made in the comment above.

But for me, I think that given the large number of different faiths we have in this country, that it is vital to not let the beliefs of one, as such, become dominant in our political thought.

Anything that is moral and just should not depend upon religious belief to be so.

I agree, except the part about Christmas trees and Easter displays needs some further understanding.

Neither of those symbols are rooted in Christianity. Christianity co-opted them from pagan festivals and pagan worship, as a way of facilitating conversion of the pagans to Christianity.

It is very interesting to read of the true origins of these symbols, including Santa.

I think it is a can of worms to allow some symbols and not others. It is not necessary to reverse what is currently in place.

I also do not support prayer in schools or mandating faith based prohibitions related to State property. There are plenty of non State options.

I fully agree with removing references to God on money and in the Pledge of Allegiance. I add to that lifting the ban on May Day as a working holiday.

Hi,

I just signed up. I'm glad I found you guys, too. I've been very involved in politics ever since my aunt unsuccessfully ran for Delaware state senate. Though she lost, the experience was wonderful and I've been involved - mostly as a pundit - for many years.

Quick story: I wasn't aware there was a Modern Whig Party until a few hours ago. I found you guys after joking with a friend on Facebook about Ron Paul. A friend asked me about RuPaul's (the transvestite singer) political affiliation and I stated he/she must be part of the "Whig" party. That led me to investigating the "real" Whig party, reading your stuff, agreeing with most of it... and signing up. :)

Anyway, I just wanted to chime in on this issue. My stance is this, the 2nd Amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."... period. If one were to read that objectively that would mean that Congress can't make a law about religion.. neither for nor against. Period. End of story. To that end, I think religion is a deeply personal issue much like abortion and it should be up to states to decide what is appropriate. If you want your kids to say "Under God..." during the Pledge... that's your prerogative. If not, that's you prerogative, too. But forcing it one way or the other is wrong.

A Moral people is essential to Good Government which promotes Freedom. We don't have that in today's America and that's why our nation is failing !!

I agree with CesareB

Dear sir,

I agree that moral people are essential to good government, but does one require religion to be a moral person?

Your’s &c.
the Federal Farmer

I'm with you Farmer.

Merriam-Webster says:Definition of RELIGION

1
a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I am not religious by any of these definitions. (well, maybe a leaning toward #4) However, I think I am a very moral person. I think 99% of the people who have ever met me would say the same.

True. I wouldn't say that our current 'lack of morality' is due to a lack of religion. If anything, it might be due to too much religion, leading to laws that are intended to impose some moral standard on the rest of us, but whose actual effect is just the opposite, encouraging the destruction of morality.

Of course (7;-]), the most obvious example is our drug laws.

well jim, if that is the way you feel, why stop there. lets remove the word "god" from every mention in the declaration of independence and from the constitution.not to be sarcastic, i really want to hear a response from this. i don't understand why so many of us have trouble figuring this out.the bishops in england had the kings ear, and thus a vast control of influence. the founding fathers did not want this or our govt. controlling the church. never..ever did they envision or want, seperation of GOD & country, just church.this country was founded with a great belief in god & it is plainly evident in all their writings of the time..both personal & documents, such as declaration & constitution.our nations welfare & strength as a whole has always been defined by our faith & our morality. all this talk of secularism, since it's rise in popularity, has been the number 1 cause of our decline, both as a people & a nation.

totally agree jim..and it's nice to see a fellow jeffersonian. i believe the greatest of our forefathers , a visionary for sure! he saw pretty much every obstacle & problem we would encounter, 200 years ago, and built safegaurds into the system to protect us from them. i wonder if there is a website for us somewhere? if anyone knows of 1 please respond & thank you.

billybob60,

I'm not sure what kind of website you mean, but I think that this one might be what you are looking for if you mean the free exchange and rational debate of ideas. :)

Speaking as someone that's not religious, this makes total sense. I don't appreciate having to deal with inane blue laws or "faith based initiatives" or the religious right in general.. But some of the complaining about religious symbols on courthouses or christmas decorations is pretty ridiculous. I don't see anyone complaining about getting Christmas off, so why is that an issue?

billybob60,
The only question is - which God? Every variation of religion has its own version of God. Do we take the Catholic God? The Baptist, the Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Moslem, the .... It just goes on forever.

And many of the Founders were Deists, and didn't necessarily believe in the same God that modern so-called Christians believe in. Jefferson even wrote his own version of the Bible.

I strongly disagree with the Whig stance on this issue.

Rather, I agree with the stance of “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” when they state that “The separation of church and state is firmly ingrained in the U.S. Constitution. Key founders such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and others supported this idea and insisted that only church-state separation could guarantee the freedom of all Americans. Church-state separation is thus not only an historic principle, it's also America's great gift to the world. Under the separation policy, Americans have enjoyed more religious freedom than any other people in history.”

As to religious displays on public property, I also agree with the stance of “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” when they state that “Government should treat all of its citizens equally. No American should be made to feel like a second-class citizen on the basis of what he or she believes (or does not believe) about God or religion. When government sponsors prayer, erects religious symbols or includes worship in official activities, it sends a message that some faiths are preferred over others or that faith is preferred over non-faith. Government should be neutral on theological questions and should never send a message like this."

The current Whig stance of “allow Equal access for all religions on public property” simply translates to “We don’t want to treat religious Americans as second class citizens, just nonreligious Americans”. It’s a stance where our government would favor the religious over the nonreligious, permitting discrimination against those that choose not to be religious.

And those who want to promote public prayer, as opposed to prayer that is part of some religious ceremony, should read Matthew 6.

I was raised catholic. I have moved into several different churches. I belief faith, by whatever form is good. I do want to respond to

"When government sponsors prayer, erects religious symbols or includes worship in official activities, it sends a message that some faiths are preferred over others or that faith is preferred over non-faith."

When I was a teenager this Was true. I felt I would be Un-american not have a church. I do not mind God being mentioned as long as it is NOT tied to a religion. It is not the Christian god, one of the Hindu gods, a Roman god, or even a native American god. It just is a general term of a greater being. For non-believer it could mean the college-minds. Whatever but no book/church/or religion as a whole would be the defining factor to declare what it means.

Secondly I love seasonal decorations. Solstice trees are beautiful sights, just as day of the dead, Easter and such has soon many season decorations that it can remove many religious ideas. It would be neat just to have a rotation maybe of faiths or prayers being said in government buildings even if not everyone was of that faith or even one was family with the religion. Tolerance is also a good practice to endorse on all topics and beliefs.

I disagree Micca.

“God” used as a proper noun is an endorsement of Monotheism. If (instead of using “God” as a proper noun) a person was to say “a god” or “the god”, then they are being non-specific as to which god they are referring to (as they could mean a god of a Monotheist or a Polytheistic religion). If (instead of using “God” as a proper noun) a person was to say “gods” or “the gods”, then they are being non-specific as to which gods they are referring to. So, using “God” as a proper noun is not a general term to be applied to all gods; it is an endorsement of Monotheism. The best you could say is that while people may disagree on the finer aspects and definition of "God", there is still only one god that exists.

You also have to look at the way “God” is being used. When politicians speak of God, or when government holds “National Day of Prayer” events and reference God in their speeches it is quite clear that it is an endorsement of Monotheism. Even further, it is an endorsement of a Monotheistic god that answers prayers. You cannot say that the way they use the proper noun “God” is inclusive to Pantheists, as Pantheists do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic, or creator god. You cannot say that the way they use the proper noun “God” is inclusive to Deists (like some of our founding fathers were), as Deists believe that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then abandoned it. You cannot say that the way they use the proper noun “God” is inclusive to Polytheists, as Polytheists believe in the existence of many gods. Obviously, you cannot say that the way they use the proper noun “God” is inclusive to Atheists, as Atheists do not hold a belief in any such higher or super-natural beings.

Again, my stance is not opposed to people being members of whatever religion they desire. My stance is not opposed to people putting whatever religious displays they desire on their own private property. My stance is that our government should not be in the religion endorsing or advertising business. My stance is that taxpayers should in no way be made to support religions and their displays. My stance is that religious activities and ceremonies should be completely separate from official government activities. What you describe as “Tolerance” in your final paragraph, I would describe as the very bigoted practice of advocating for religious tolerance while simultaneously being intolerant of the nonreligious.

I would also encourage you to revisit your first statement that "faith, by whatever form is good"; this is a stance that I'm sure both religious and nonreligious people would disagree with you on.