What exactly is wrong with a mild relationship between government and religion?

This thread regards religious politics in general, but is more specifically focused on the increasingly evident "anti-religious" behaviours associated with left-wing politics.

I suppose the main question of this thread is, 'Why is a complete seperation of church and state necessary?' Or perhaps 'Why should the religious beliefs of the majority be ignored in a democratic society?'

Obviously, a pure theocracy is not practical for this modern age due to a globally considerable (though minor) number of people not affiliated with a recongnized religion.

But, would this not mean that the exact opposite of a theocracy ("complete" seperation of church and state) would also not be practical, considering that the (nearly) 'vast' majority of people 'do' consider themselves to be affiliated with a religion?

If you consider the fact that roughly three quarters of the people of modern developed western nations are, in fact, religious, would it not be healthy and a positive idea to create a more structural relationship between religion and government?

What I tend to observe from people who happen to be non-religious, is that they support (almost aggressively) this concept of a complete seperation of church and state, simply because not all people share the same beliefs -- but in a democratic society, would it not be considered innapproapriate to ignore the theological beliefs and identities of the majority?

Even something as simple and basic and government funding to religious institutions and faith-based organtizations / charities with would improve the a very important life aspect to "the people". Not even something like this can be accepted by those collectively associated with left-wing politics. Or what about posting religious documents (such as the 10 commandments -- which are pretty basic and geniune morals that I'm sure everyone (regardless of religion, or lack their of) can easily go by) in public areas/schools? How can seeing a religious symbol or text of a religion that an individual may not follow be offensive?

It seems like society is becoming an atheistic one -- even though the majority of the people within any given nation (as well of the entire planet collectively) have contrary views.

Don't get me wrong -- I think that an overly-religious government would be very negative. But I don't see why society and politics should exclusively please the minority, rather than the majority, in terms of use of religion.

How would a government with minor religious influence be harmful?

C = JD

'Why is a complete seperation of church and state necessary?'

It's not necessary. Organizations like the ACLU, which often seem to be anti-Christian, would have you believe that there must be a total separation, but this is absurd and an intentional misreading of the First Amendment. The Founders never intended the banning of nativity scenes, for example, or a simple prayer before a football game.

MissHazel

A pastor once explained this to me this way,
Our country is based on freedom - including the right to freedom of religion. If we have religion in the government - everyone assumes it is only Christianity we are talking about. If Christians have freedom to be Christians and use the government as their platform - what is to stop other religions that are different to do the same thing? Because we have this freedom that so many died for concerning religious rights - well, what would stop nonmainstream religions from speaking up and demanding their EQUAL rights? Religions come in many forms besides Christianity. Many people are Buddist. Wouldn't our equal religious rights allow a Buddah standing next to Jesus?
Why not? And there are self proclaimed witches who believe that their coven is a religious church. What would stop them from recruiting witches at the elementary school - if Christian's can hand out Bibles why couldn't the witches hand out witch manuels or whatever they use? It opens a whole can of worms and a whole lot of people having different opinons. Even within Christianity there are dozens of sects. There is infighting just for their differences!
THAT is what the results would be if we push the freedom of religion and try to vote it to be pushed onto the government front. Extremists believe that it is all Christian or no religion at all.
And each group will fight for their end to prove a downfall for all.
I believe we have the minor religious influence now compared to what it could become. Can we get away with what we have without it being a strong issue for many? I don't know. I do believe the majority of U.S. Americans are Christian. But it seems like whomever has the platform and fights the hardest and loudest and has money in Washington is typically the power who rules.
I am hoping that extremists leave well enough alone and realize what they are asking for and what could come from their positions being realized. It may not end up to be at all what it looked like when they first asked for it.
I am interested in other's views and try to listen carefully to what people claim and the future of the decisions made.
Thanks for letting me say what has been on my mind. I can't say I'm 100% right - I am a learning and growing person who finds that the older I am and the more "educated" I become, the more I have to learn. I hope I kept to the topic you suggested. Thanks for your views!

wiseacre

Where do you draw the line? "Mild" is a relative term. Then we are back to the same old arguments we've been hearing for 20 years.

missusjonz

The Constitution is set up to protect people from the tyranny of the majority. Remember, the pilgrims fled the state religon of the time in England to seek religious freedom here. The Founding Fathers recognized that the only way to make sure that everyone could worship in the way that he or she pleased was to keep government & worship separate.

namvet68

Iâ€™m Buddhist, put me in charge and you will find a peaceful solution to all your problems.
â€œBuddhism Rulesâ€

BlueOctagons

Well, the original reason for a separation of church and state was to protect the church, which I think is still a completely valid reason for it.

While, yes, there are many in the U.S. who consider themselves Christian, for the government to finance or provide assistance to Christian organizations would be the same as establishing a state religion, unless they did the same for ALL religions. True, the church wouldn't "run" the government per se, but monetary favoritism seems to be to be advocating a particular religion over another--hence a "state-approved" religion. We can all see that this is unconstitutional.

It is simply breaking the rules of the Constitution to have a government with "minor religious influence." The need for a secular government was one of the most important catalysts for the founding of the U.S.

The government has no place controlling the activities of churches, either. Allowing them to provide funding implies that they have a say in how that funding is spent, just like it is for all other government-funded institutions. I know of no church who would be willing to accept that.

tigerlilliebuick

Go to your history books the whole reason for seperation is due to persecution in the old days lol

BigD

Religion should stay out of politics

but that doesn't mean that you throw out all religious concepts - love your neighbor, help the poor... all still valid

girl afraid

Because centuries of state-sponsered religion saw nothing but sectarianism and the persecution of those following different religions than that which was state approved.

Joe B

The problem is that religions are themselves run by a religious institution. If a government is to be religious at all, it would need to have one religion, thereby affiliating itself with this institution. The institution would then have some power over the government (see religious right in the states). Any government, of course, should practise good morals, but an idea like posting the ten commandments everywhere would be seen as indoctrinating, and discriminating against the people who are not of that religion.
Religion gives politicians an easy excuse to do things ("God told me to attack Iraq"), and divides society. People should support a party because of its policy, not because it is of their religion.

roy40372

for one thing our forefathers had the forsight to see that religon and government does not mix. if you get religon involved then you got a conflict going. how would you like for a radical muslum to get elected as president of the untied states??? i sure hope to hell that you're not one your self. now do you see why religon and government should not be mixed? and there is no form of mild religon on a continous bases pretty soon you gonna get the dictator hard core in there too.

stressedtothemax

WHICH RELIGION YOU BLOW HARD?

Geshko

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

Which essentially means the government cannot force religion onto the people, nor can they prohibit the practice of any religion.

I'm sure most non-christian people wouldn't have a problem with the 10 Commandments being posted outside of a courthouse except for that pesky 1st one... "Thou shall have no other gods before me." That sounds like an endorsment of religion if I ever heard one! ^_^

However, people getting offended over "One nation, under God" in the Pledge of Alleigance are a little too sensitive.
Don't believe in God? Just say "One nation, indivisible". Its a personal choice, no one's holding a gun to your head and making you say it.

micho

now days government use religion to make war
america for example made a war against afganistan to destroy osama ben laden power and it done its objective
but it wants more
it attacked iraq for reason sorry joke reason that iraq will have nuclair boomb after 45 minutes

then wants more also by useing religion to make all americans say amen
attack iran
and then what and what ?
war never be ended ?

athorgarak

In fact, there is no harm of any influence, whatever the root, on government, providing that that influence is not harmful to the system or country's functions.
A communist influence, as witnessed by the democratic party's constant and continual pushing towards socialist policies, is not religious, but it is harmful.
Religious influence, and it cannot be denied, already exists, to our mutual benefit:
Thou shalt not murder
Thou shalt not steal

Of course, in our PC world where it is wrong to offend anyone, with the exception of Christians, You can have ANY base for your beliefs and feelings and point of view, as long as it is not base on the Bible! PLEASE DO NOT LET THE MORALLY GUIDED LEAD!

The term, as coined and explained, by Jefferson, was intended to free all religious (christian) from government interference, NOT the other way around.
In fact, Being a professed Christian, was often a requirement for public office, and it was constitutional or the framers of that constitution would have fought against it just as they fought against other inequities they perceived! No test was to be given, to assure that no branch of Christianity could usurp power and force its view onto the other creeds.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: