Thread: Separation of Church and...

It was the early protestants in America who pushed the hardest for the separation of church and state. They had seen first hand what happens when the state endorses a particular religious belief. Every person of another belief is automatically a second class citizens and not as backed or represented or treated equally by the state.

They knew that in order to have complete freedom OF religion, everyone first had to have freedom FROM religion. Think about that and you'll see the truth of it.


When government officials do things like that, the message they are sending is that the state shares the beliefs of a particular segment of the population, not all citizens. This automatically marginalizes every citizen who doesn't share that belief.

If you think that's not the case, imagine that he was a Muslim governor of a state that you as a Christian lived in for a moment. Now imagine your feelings if the governor announced a date of worship for Muhammad and prayers to Allah.

In that situation, could you at that point ever feel that the government represented your interests equally as those of a Muslim in your state?

If you as a Christian went to the court system in your state and saw predominantly displayed in the court house a giant monument of the 5 pillars of Islam, would you feel that you're going to receive treatment equal to a Muslim in the court system?

No. It's impossible to, because the state is automatically more on the side of some citizens than it is on others.

Freedom of religion isn't there to protect the position of the majority, it's there to protect the positions of the minority religions, because the position of majority doesn't always stay that way. For one group to be protected, all have to be. For that to happen, the power of the state CAN NOT be more behind any one belief.

Absolute separation of state is the only way to fully achieve that. It's that way to protect me and you as well, from each other and the state equally.

I say lets look at what separation of church and state means. The term simply means that the government cannot support or be supported by a specific religious group. If we rewind our brains to basic grade school history, many immigrants to the new world wished to escape the Catholic Empire of Europe. The Catholic Church had its hands elbow deep in the governments of many countries and controlled what religion could be practiced. Our constitution never once said that government could not be affiliated with a religious group or religious ideals. The ideal of separation exists solely to prevent another religious empire from forming. Liberal extremists took that ball and ran with it. And where did that get us? Kids get expelled for having a christian Bible or praying over their lunches but leaving the class to pray 5 times a day and carrying the Koran is just fine. Its all a big sham. I would much rather have a political figure in office that promotes a solid christian lifestyle than one that doesnt. After all, most of our forefathers did.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...[/

Umm yeah that is in the Constitution, there is no Seperation of Church and State in there..


True Atheists should have no problem with Religion, right up until the are made to practice any Religion by proclimation of law,,

Originally Posted by debay

Kids get expelled for having a christian Bible or praying over their lunches but leaving the class to pray 5 times a day and carrying the Koran is just fine. Its all a big sham. I would much rather have a political figure in office that promotes a solid christian lifestyle than one that doesnt. After all, most of our forefathers did.

That's just not the case. Any kid can and does carry their own religious book or pray as much as they like. They can pray in school where and whenever they like.

What can not happen is that a teacher or the school itself cannot call for a prayer or proselytize or push or endorse any religion.

For exactly the reasons I detailed in my post above.

Uhhhh, that pretty much says what I said. The government cannot support or be supported by a "church". Im personally OK with that. It doesnt mean however, that kids cant carry a bible in school. Or that the 10 commandments cant be hung in court rooms. Or that kids cant pray as part of a graduation ceremony. It has gone too far.

Originally Posted by debay

Uhhhh, that pretty much says what I said. The government cannot support or be supported by a "church". Im personally OK with that. It doesnt mean however, that kids cant carry a bible in school. Or that the 10 commandments cant be hung in court rooms. Or that kids cant pray as part of a graduation ceremony. It has gone too far.

Kids can and frequently do carry bibles in school. Kids can and do pray in graduation ceremonies.

The school itself can't call for prayers in ceremonies. The kids can do it as much as they like.

The ten commandments can not be hung in court rooms.

So, by todays standards this is wrong?
http://m.voices.yahoo.com/whats-prea...n-3255417.html

Originally Posted by debay

So, by todays standards this is wrong?
http://m.voices.yahoo.com/whats-prea...n-3255417.html

No. It's not.

The preamble isn't the states official document, it's more a personal note by the author and has no power of law.

Neither did that Governors comments or actions....

Originally Posted by debay

Neither did that Governors comments or actions....

I don't know why this is hard for you to understand.

A governor's comments from the podium in a public speech like that is the embodiment of the state's position and the weight of the full power of the state and its law.

The governor could write op-eds all day outlining his religious beliefs, no problem.

But when he puts on the mantle of state power and steps on the podium to speak, then yes, it's a problem because it's wrong.