Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Whatever happened to separation of church and state? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/48782-whatever-happened-separation-church-state.html)

Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

i think you're supposed to post an extract of the article too, so people don't have to sign up to a load of spam to read it.

I always found it interesting that in the UK the state and church are heavily linked, I frequently was made (well, not forced, but everyone just did) pray at school...

And yet the UK is a very irreligious country, teh C of E is a standing joke and the most religious people here are immigrants (there are more practising Muslims in the UK than Christians I think)

The US has this big deal about separating church and state, and is the most strongly religious industrially advanced nation on earth.

Quote:

Bush Assures Evangelicals of His Commitment to Amendment on Marriage
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: March 12, 2004

OLORADO SPRINGS, March 11 — In a speech expressing his solidarity with the National Association of Evangelicals at its annual convention here, President Bush on Thursday forcefully restated his call for passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to enthusiastic rounds of applause.

Mr. Bush, speaking via teleconference displayed on three giant screens in the mammoth New Life Church, gave a hearty endorsement to the association, which boasts a membership including 45,000 congregations, with 30 million members.

Mr. Bush said it was founded "with the highest of callings, to proclaim the word of God." He added, "You are doing God's work with conviction and kindness and on behalf of our country I thank you."

Interrupted by applause several times, he later said, "I will defend the sanctity of marriage against activist courts and local officials who want to redefine marriage. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."

Mr. Bush gave his speech hours before the California Supreme Court ordered San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and before the Massachusetts legislature gave preliminary approval to compromise measures that could ban gay marriage while allowing civil unions.

Several prominent evangelical Protestants in Washington have told the White House that backing the constitutional amendment is vital to getting evangelical voters to turn out on Election Day. And the convention organizers were aware of their clout. A slogan on the back of the convention program reads: "What Can 30 Million Evangelicals Do For America? Anything We Want."

While Mr. Bush's vocal support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage pleased this audience, his stance has also worried some Republicans. Some of his aides said Mr. Bush appeared uncomfortable in his public announcement last month at the White House, and a handful of Republicans have said they hope he will not bring it up again for fear of seeming intolerant or divisive.

Other issues that generated rounds of applause for the president on Thursday included his strong support for several anti-abortion measures.

He also called on Congress to pass an act treating fetuses injured in attacks on pregnant women as crime victims in their own right.

He repeated his longstanding opposition to cloning and new stem-cell research, just a month after South Korean researchers announced that they had produced human embryos and stem cells through cloning.

"I oppose the use of federal funds for the destruction of embryos for stem cell research," Mr. Bush said, "and I will work with Congress to pass a comprehensive and effective ban on human cloning. Human life is a creation of God, not a commodity to be exploited by man."

One of the few discordant notes at the convention came from Robert Schuller, a televangelist and senior pastor of the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, Calif., who delivered an address gently criticizing some conservative evangelical Christians for acting as if they know the only possible route to salvation.

"What upsets me about religious leaders of all faiths is that they talk like they know it all, and anybody who doesn't agree with them is a heretic," he said later in an interview.

Mr. Schuller said he did not know enough about the proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage to express a view. But he suggested that politics could be a distraction from more important matters.

"Politics is a force that pulls answers towards mediocrity," he said, "That is why when issues are politicized, I am gone."

Marriage has a religious foundation far older than the laws of our country. If recognizing marriage between a man and a woman didn't violate the "separation of church and state", why would you possibly think that not recognizing a gay marriage would?

Thanks for posting the article in it's entirety...I though I posted some quotes...Sorry!

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Marriage has a religious foundation far older than the laws of our country. If recognizing marriage between a man and a woman didn't violate the "separation of church and state", why would you possibly think that not recognizing a gay marriage would?

Gay marriage is just a part of it. What about the fact that he said
"Human life is a creation of God, not a commodity to be exploited by man"

I certainly am not sure if that is true and I certainly don't want the government promoting it or forceing it down people's throats.

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnnyRock
Gay marriage is just a part of it. What about the fact that he said
"Human life is a creation of God, not a commodity to be exploited by man"

I certainly am not sure if that is true and I certainly don't want the government promoting it or forceing it down people's throats.

So, do you believe that any belief rooted in religion shouldn't be a law? IMO, it doesn't matter where the belief comes from so long as most people support it and it falls within the Constitution. Certainly there are going to be big debates about the cloning and fetus issues since people's definitions of "life" vary.

I guess I just don't understand how so many people can use the argument of separation of church and state as an argument against so many things. Religion plays a strong role in billions of people's lives, to think their decisions and beliefs aren't going to be impacted by it seems unrealistic.

And, just an FYI in case you think I'm saying this because I support the President's stand on these issues, I disagree with him on a lot of it.

So-called "separation of church and state" is a collective figment of the left's imagination.

The point is in the UK where the church and state are explicitly linked, the church is irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
So-called "separation of church and state" is a collective figment of the left's imagination.

Agreed. Someone please show me where that comes up in any of the founding documents and amendments to said documents.

anyone who doesn't believe in evolution should stop taking antibiotics since pharmacology is based completely upon it. natural selection will then reslove this issue once and for all when all the creationists keel over from gangrenous paper cuts and leave only evolutionists in the breeding population. ;-)

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Agreed. Someone please show me where that comes up in any of the founding documents and amendments to said documents.

you are correct, but to say that the concept is a "figment of the left's imagination" is assinine (to use one of your favorite expressions ;-)). From wikipedia:

Quote:

The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Contrary to popular belief, the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in no founding American document. The concept of a "wall of separation between church and state," is often interpreted as prohibiting religious expressions in public settings (schools, courtrooms, etc.). The phrase was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Episcopal church in Virginia). His intention was to assure this religious minority that their rights would be protected from undue external interference. The two prohibitions of the First Amendment have been viewed as rather contradictory, and one common theme in court rulings in the United States is to resolve situations with the estatablishment clause and the free exercise clause contradict each other.

i think this quote, from the author of our bill of rights, sums up the intent of separation very well:

Quote:

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. —James Madison.

I guess I just don't understand how so many people can use the argument of separation of church and state as an argument against so many things. Religion plays a strong role in billions of people's lives, to think their decisions and beliefs aren't going to be impacted by it seems unrealistic.
[/B][/QUOTE]

While religion plays a strong role in billions of people's lives, each person's interpretation and beliefs--even within a religion--may differ. I am sure there are some Christians that don't totally agree with Bush's interpretation of the Bible.

I mean the KKK wil use passages from the Bible to back their beliefs and I'm sure not every Christian agrees with their views.

My biggest problem comes from a political figure falling back on religion to either trample certain populations rights or attempt at gaining rights or stopping science from learning things that may help millions upon millions of people now and in the future.

I personally dont think the goverment should be able to marry anyone. Marrige is a church institution like said above. The church should be free to marry and not marry whoever it so chooses. The goverment should only be able to grant civil unions and they should be to any kind of couple that seeks it

Quote:

Originally posted by Jasmar
I personally dont think the goverment should be able to marry anyone. Marrige is a church institution like said above. The church should be free to marry and not marry whoever it so chooses. The goverment should only be able to grant civil unions and they should be to any kind of couple that seeks it

as long as they carry the exact same rights marriage currently does for all, that is the right way to go. I was married by a judge, and religion had nothing to do with it, so civil union sounds more appropriate.

Quote:

I couldn't agree more. I'm all for gays getting civil unions by our government or "married" by churches that choose to. I just think they should do it by legal means. The law needs to be decided one way or another. We can't have mayors of cities or judges here and there just passing out licenses. We've got to make the laws define it very specifically.

Quote:

you are assuming marriage is a church institution. What about people from other cultures? In most other cultures (other than Christianity) marriage is a social custom. In Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, the traditional marriage is a social event, not a religious event. They are not presided over by a priest or held in religious buildings.

Marriages (of all forms) should be carried out by individuals according to their customs and religions. The state should issue certificates of civil union (that bestow all the rights that "married" people enjoy now) to every couple that wish to take on all the rights and responsibilities of a civil union.

I'm pro-love, in case anyone is wondering....

The seperation of church and state are a requirement in any society that wishes to have equality and justice across the entire population. EVERY, and I do mean every single religion, will hold someone in a lesser regard if they are not part of the faith. Maybe not baltantly....but it is inherent in the very concept of religion that someone is correct and another is not.Government creates classes quite well on its own, without a hand from god.