Quantcast

Should Religion and State always be completely separate?

Wayne TH G 333 2012/07/29 04:11:51
Related Topics: Religion, State
Yes
No
Undecided
Other
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Brosia 2012/08/28 17:29:17
    Yes
    Brosia
    +2
    You cannot make laws based on any one religion because not everyone is of the same religion, and therefore would be curtailing the freedoms of others while enabling the freedoms of others. And that is not what this country is all about.
  • gfreeman BN-0 2012/07/30 18:21:51
    Yes
    gfreeman BN-0
    +2
    Always.
  • iamco2000 2012/07/30 02:37:19
    Other
    iamco2000
    People people people, this was established to protect the CHURCH, not the State! We are a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, but we are also a nation that was consecrated and dedicated to God by George Washington himself! We may be a secular society today but we certainly didn't start out that way and we certainly won't make it very long without judgement if we fail to turn back!

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
  • Doc. J 2012/07/30 00:27:30
    Yes
    Doc. J
    +2
    Unless you LIKE the idea of becoming like...........Iran.
  • 3052457 2012/07/30 00:11:37
  • Wayne T... 3052457 2012/07/30 02:07:16
    Wayne TH G 333
    Do you realise that the UK is one of very few countries that has a state religion. You can see by the map the sort of nations we have for company. I would prefer that we drop this as soon as possible, because I think if you had an opinion poll on it, the vast majority would be against continuing with it.
    state religions map
  • 3052457 Wayne T... 2012/07/30 02:28:16
  • Wayne T... 3052457 2012/07/30 02:51:00
    Wayne TH G 333
    Well I'm afraid I disagree with you on a few things there. When I asked the question on here 'Should Your Country Have An Official Religion' 30 voted no, 1 was undecided and 0 voted yes. All UK users voted no.

    Maps not invalid. lol

    The 1937 Constitution of Ireland prohibited the state from endorsing any Christian denomination as an established church.

    Scotland
    Despite some official documentation (marriage registrations being a common example) describing the Church of Scotland as the "Established Church" the Kirk has always disclaimed that status. This was eventually acknowledged by the United Kingdom government within the Church of Scotland Act 1921. Since it has thus never been legally established it cannot be disestablished.

    Wales Welsh Church Act 1914
    In Wales, four Church of England dioceses were disestablished in 1920, becoming separated from the Church of England in the process and subsequently becoming the Church in Wales (not an established church).

    The Falklands are too small to show up on such a small scale World map.

    Of course you are right in that it's not the most important thing to worry about, but in a multicultural and increasingly less religious society it's outdated to have a so called official religion.
  • Radical Ed Wayne T... 2012/07/30 18:15:22
    Radical Ed
    +2
    Got to add that Ireland had a blasphemy law which was removed only last year.
  • Trevor Roberts 2012/07/29 22:24:19
    Yes
    Trevor Roberts
    +3
    If religion is meant to keep faith why do people wage war and bloodshed to break it?
  • iamco2000 Trevor ... 2012/07/30 02:42:03
    iamco2000
    Ya know, it's funny that nearly everyone that makes this point does so aiming at Christians...people (in case you forgot how this all works) have a little something called freewill. No one in existence (now or ever before) was created as an automaton...we live in a fallen world, sometimes people make bad choices with their freewill in a fallen world and inflict atrocities. Just as you cannot blame the whole for the part you can't invalidate the sum total because of some of its parts.

    Also, I'm not really sure I understand your statement completely. People don't wage war and bloodshed for the sake of breaking their faith. Faith is an individual relationship with God, Religion is only a set of practices...neither of which are capable of waging war.

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
  • Trevor ... iamco2000 2012/08/01 00:17:10
    Trevor Roberts
    Yes but other religions which there is more then one like i dont know muslum who are hell bent on destroying our faith. Wars in Afirca middle east and well throught time have been exatcly though that purpose. Im not saying your wrong, but what god allows this war and bloodshed.
  • iamco2000 Trevor ... 2012/08/01 04:36:08
    iamco2000
    A God who demands free will, a God whose mercy demands the acceptance of Christ in the heart and confession on the lips, a God who did not destroy his creation (Adam and Eve) and gave them tools to survive, a God who sent an agent from heaven to bridge the gap between our iniquity and eternal salvation (Jesus).

    God uses pain to teach us as well. Lives are transformed, lessons are learned, bonds are created, witnesses are heard, lives are saved and heaven wins during our struggles...how many lessons do we remember that we learn through pleasure? How about our failures/pain. God is infinitely wise and knowing (we are not, nor do we have the capacity to be!) and I believe this to be an act of mercy upon us as well.

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
  • Trevor ... iamco2000 2012/08/01 04:44:59
    Trevor Roberts
    Hmm... I hate to do this but as an agnostic I have to. What is Adams first wifes name?
  • iamco2000 Trevor ... 2012/08/01 05:02:12
    iamco2000
    Well, if you're sticking with scripture that would of course be Eve....if you're somehow thinking the answer is Lilith, that comes straight out of Ancient Hebrew folklore (or Assyrian, depending on the source you read), decided not scriptural. Genesis 3:20 makes this clear for us: "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
  • Trevor ... iamco2000 2012/08/01 05:06:38
    Trevor Roberts
    But it was in the original scripts but it was changed in the 14th century, because they voted against it saying there will be no divorces, which started the no divorces clause to suit there own needs, just like they mardured Mary Magdalene
  • iamco2000 Trevor ... 2012/08/01 05:48:08
    iamco2000
    No, that's not true.....the original manuscripts and papyri are still available in their native Greek and Hebrew and I've never read a commentary that stated to the contrary. The Bible is as true today as it was 2k years ago and the concordances and commentaries are now all online (Strong's is a fantastic resource!) and the amount of facts that have been verified (anthropological, sociological, regional secular records, archaeological artifacts, people, places, times etc)...in fact, just about every-time some researcher in the name of science goes out to disprove the Bible or find some evidence to make a literary attack they do better than come up empty handed...they come back believers!

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
  • Trevor ... iamco2000 2012/08/01 05:51:04
    Trevor Roberts
    Explain Enoch and methusala
  • iamco2000 Trevor ... 2012/08/01 06:19:02
    iamco2000
    Simple to understand, the authenticity of these books had sufficient doubtfulness to not be considered (or rejected rather) for canonization.

    Simply stated, most of the books not part of the Apocrypha or the canonized Bible either strayed away from personal accounts, contained legends or myths instead of literal facts and divine revelation or, quite simply, would have been impossibly difficult to translate from their native tongue into a different language that maintained the same meaning (word for word or thought for thought).

    That's not to say these texts are not available (they certainly are) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/scha... is a great resource, as is http://carm.org/book-of-enoch (both for Enoch, there are other resources out there for Methusala as well), just that they were not canonized (even though some denominations from around the world do choose to use them (Ethiopian Episcopal if memory serves).

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
  • Trevor ... iamco2000 2012/08/01 06:23:31
    Trevor Roberts
    +1
    Well im not backing down to you or anthing. I admire your will and agree with what you say on some parts. But it really is getting late here. We can both argee to dis agree because really we can go on and on about this. I respect you sir. thats hard to do. You answered at least lilith, and that is where people give up. If you want to continue our chat we can email each other, but until then, you have my respect.
  • KingdomNow 2012/07/29 21:40:19
    No
    KingdomNow
    +1
    The 1936 USSR (Communist Russia) constitution:

    "ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church."

    That is where constitutional "separation of church and state" came from.
  • 3052457 KingdomNow 2012/07/30 00:16:10 (edited)
  • KingdomNow 3052457 2012/07/30 02:21:55
    KingdomNow
    Henry VIII: Starting a state church with the king at its head is hardly separating church and state- The Church of England was even more combined with the British government than the Church of Rome and caused much death and suffering that still exists today.

    Confucianism was elevated to a religion alongside Buddhism and Taoism in China. Each served as guides to morality and with or without divinities, are religions by definition.

    The USSR was the first to codify the separation doctrine and when judges in the US quote a constitutional separation, it isn't from the US constitution.
  • 3052457 KingdomNow 2012/07/30 02:36:08 (edited)
  • KingdomNow 3052457 2012/07/30 02:40:24
    KingdomNow
    Tell the people whose families fled Ireland over the last 600 years that Britain exercised separation of church and state.
  • 3052457 KingdomNow 2012/07/30 12:26:17
  • KingdomNow 3052457 2012/07/30 22:08:25
    KingdomNow
    The British and Northern Ireland would disagree with you.
  • 3052457 KingdomNow 2012/07/30 23:54:11
  • iamco2000 KingdomNow 2012/07/30 02:47:55
    iamco2000
    +1
    regardless of the origin, our 1st Ammendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", if you read it as it is written it clearly underscores the intent on keeping big bro OUT of interfering with church affairs...simply stated, it was drafted to protect the CHURCH, not the state!

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
  • 3052457 iamco2000 2012/07/30 23:57:08
  • iamco2000 3052457 2012/07/31 18:52:36
    iamco2000
    That is the most twisted and non-contextual interpretation I have ever heard!

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" literally translates to (as has been expected by the supreme court time after time) that;

    congress (we agree so far on congress),

    shall make no law (this is what congress does, they make laws....shall make no (again pretty straight for...simply means "cant"))

    respecting (again, pretty straight forward, synonymous with "pertaining to", "interfering with", "as it relates", "affecting", etc)...

    an establishment of religion (yet again, pretty straight forward..."the church"),

    Put another way, they can't make laws that affect the church...

    and then we tag on the end part of it "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

    Free exercise literally translates to the operation of (operate, run, function, exist)(or anything required to make the operation of said institution possible)...

    All together we get "they can't make laws that affect the church...or interfere with it's ability to operate"

    This was written in deliberately clear language, if the lawmakers intended to state that congress could not endorse any particular faith they would not have worded this way (evident in the rest of the "Bill of Rights"), they would simply have stated "Congress s...

    That is the most twisted and non-contextual interpretation I have ever heard!

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" literally translates to (as has been expected by the supreme court time after time) that;

    congress (we agree so far on congress),

    shall make no law (this is what congress does, they make laws....shall make no (again pretty straight for...simply means "cant"))

    respecting (again, pretty straight forward, synonymous with "pertaining to", "interfering with", "as it relates", "affecting", etc)...

    an establishment of religion (yet again, pretty straight forward..."the church"),

    Put another way, they can't make laws that affect the church...

    and then we tag on the end part of it "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

    Free exercise literally translates to the operation of (operate, run, function, exist)(or anything required to make the operation of said institution possible)...

    All together we get "they can't make laws that affect the church...or interfere with it's ability to operate"

    This was written in deliberately clear language, if the lawmakers intended to state that congress could not endorse any particular faith they would not have worded this way (evident in the rest of the "Bill of Rights"), they would simply have stated "Congress shall with hold all faith perspective bias and make no law that adopts the perspective of any particular establishment of religion." CLEARLY this is not what the amendment reads...you can't fill in what isn't there.

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
    (more)
  • 3052457 iamco2000 2012/08/01 00:27:13
  • iamco2000 3052457 2012/08/01 04:39:07
    iamco2000
    "Context is not taken into account when applying the dictionary", context is taken into account when looking at history, people, places, events, culture and virtually everything that has ever or will ever exist. Without context, you can't make an argument for or against something and be considered rational!

    The church is not ignored, it's a vital component in the founding, establishing, ruling, governance and lawmaking components of this nation....history disagrees with your interpretation.

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
  • 3052457 iamco2000 2012/08/01 18:24:05
  • iamco2000 3052457 2012/08/01 19:25:54
    iamco2000
    I'm not sure how you base that, the founders of this country fled specifically from the Catholic church...if you visit (or study) Plymouth, MA you would be aware of this.

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
  • 3052457 iamco2000 2012/08/01 21:22:08
  • iamco2000 3052457 2012/08/02 17:12:41
    iamco2000
    LOL, sorry, I literally fell out of my chair laughing at at.

    Grace to you, Glory to God!
  • Seiryuu 2012/07/29 21:26:46
    Yes
    Seiryuu
    +1
    How I wish that would happen. Pity it isn't, though.
  • Michelle 2012/07/29 21:25:51
    Yes
    Michelle
    +1
    When a country is a theocracy, it alienates everyone of every other religion and especially those with no religion. A theocracy leaves people of differing beliefs feeling oppressed by those who run it. It forces it's own beliefs on those who don't agree and sometimes causes people to obey laws they do not think are necessary. Look at the theocracies around the world: many people move to the States to get away from that. While the majority of citizens may be Christian, everyone else is put into a terrible position.

    By the way,
    The first commandment (therefore it is implying that it is the most important one) is that people should not practice another religion. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Yeah, putting a group with that belief in charge of a theocracy based on that religion is a really good idea? Power goes to people's heads: if Christians are allowed to force their morals on others, things will begin to get out of hand, eventually.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/10/25 16:58:43

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals