Seperation of Church and State?
 

I wonder why seperation of church and state doesn't apply to stuff like this?? I guess when the goal is in one's interest...they turn their heads to the issue :rolleyes: Whats funny to me is that a lot of black people will down Bush for not going to black churches and pandering like Kerry does...as if Kerry really cares about black people and our plight...we have to care about ourselves and do what we have to do for our own community...not fall down and bow to the first candidate that comes to our churches...ONLY AROUND ELECTION TIME! :mad:


October 10, 2004, 8:04 PM EDT
Kerry campaigns in Fla. with Sharpton, Jackson

MIAMI -- The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton set aside their rivalry yesterday and appeared jointly at a church to exhort blacks to vote for Democrat John Kerry, who cast his own election as a continuation of the nation's civil rights struggle.

With polls showing blacks support Kerry overwhelmingly, Jackson and Sharpton urged about 300 parishioners at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church to be sure to vote, warning against efforts to keep blacks from the polls on Nov. 2.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics...-top-headlines

no, there is no longer a separation of church and state. and this cannot be blamed on one candidate or the other, both major parties are responsible for this (i dont know enough about the minor parties to include/exclude them). both sides constantly bring religion into political debates in an effort to draw voters to them. it seems almost to be more a thing of convenience than actual belief though. i think this has been most notable during this election campaign becuase of the many controversial topics, but it has been present for some time now. regardless, it is absolutely rediculous that religion is allowed to be brought into politics the way it has been. i am not here to state my religion or to bash any religion, but in a state that is as religiously diverse as the united states, one religion should not be more influential over laws and policies than any other. the only way to accomplish this is for politicians to re-visit the constitution and pay close attention to the part about religion and the state.

I agree with you...but if you're going to use religion to bolster your sides argument..then don't criticize the other side for doing the same thing. Don't go into churches...but say you don't want to get into the religiousity of gay marriage because of seperation of church and state...and vice versa. This does happen on both sides of the aisle..I just wish the candidates would be real.

Seems to me that there is a pretty big difference between two ministers -- albeit highly politically active ones -- campaigning for a person or party and a party itself (through phone banks, etc) attempting to use religious organizations to forward it's causes and candidates. Apparantely both sides have done the latter.

However, it seems to me that in neither case is there a Constitutional issue, because political parties aren't the government per se.

If a sitting government official uses her/his influence to try to shape the course of a religion -- or shape the course of the government because of his/her religious beliefs, that's another matter.

Agreed. The church/state issue, in my opinion, has more to do with things like prayer in public schools and issues of that sort.

As a non-Christian, I wish politicians would keep their religious views quiet. You don't have to be Christian to be President -- religious views have nothing to do with one's ability to govern the country, and although Christians might be the majority in this country, it's the President's job to work for ALL Americans.

It's a little more than that. Kerry and these two "ministers" were campaigning in a church, during church services.

If those "ministers" are taking tax exemptions for religious organizations (the churches themselves are, no doubt) then it's a major IRS violation that could get their tax-exempt status yanked.

If a Republican were campaigning from a pulpit, there would be a major outcry over the tax exempt status. But it's a Democrat, w/ Al "I Believe Tawana Brawley" Sharpton and Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson. We'll see if anyone bothers....

--add

EXACTLY!

We probably have similar, if not downright identical, views in this situation.

Besides, Bush isn't innocent of stumping in churches either. It's a big constituency, and candidates have done that for quite some time. As long as they don't bring the pulpit into the Oval Office, I could give two rats' asses where they stump.

I think no matter how people want to separate chuch and state, people also have to admit that many countries were founded on (Judeo-)Christian principles and it would be difficult to rid that because it is just so ingrained (engrained?) into the culture.

Co-sign.

I was surprised to hear about Kerry campaigning at church, but like it was said earlier, that's not necessarily a violation. As long as the preachers weren't endorsing him, I'm fine with it.

Now Jerry Falwell using his church newsletter to endorse Bush was a clear violation. Good ol' Jerry just had a huge conference here teaching politicians how to use their tax-exempt status to endorse candidates and get around the gov't. Now THAT pisses me off.

But they were endorsing him......

--add

ETA:
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics...-top-headlines

"The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton set aside their rivalry yesterday and appeared jointly at a church to exhort blacks to vote for Democrat John Kerry , who cast his own election as a continuation of the nation's civil rights struggle." (emphasis added)

So the question is, are Democratic supporters as angry at this as they are at Falwell, et al?

i don't think the church/clergy/preachers are promoting unification of church & state. any church has a set of values and beliefs that they are trying to make sure is represented.

I don't think any preachers should be endorsing candidates, period. While I am 100% for Kerry, I don't think he should have had endorsement from these men. I just hate it when people use religion as a vehicle for candidates. Imagine how the people at that church who are pro-Bush felt, just as people at a pro-Kerry church would feel if someone in an authoritative position at their church were endorsing Kerry. As dumb as it sounds, when someone with influence in a church endorses a candidate, I think people in the church may feel as if their views are wrong and they should vote the way the church is influencing them. To me, that is horrible. I'm glad I go to a church where I am allowed to think for myself and I do not have to defend myself for voting the way I do.

I'm not angry about anyone endorsing anyone. Why should it bother me? I'll vote according to my beliefs, and that has nothing to do with anyone else.

this is like 3 degrees north of the "BUT THE MONEY SAYS IN GOD WE TRUST!!" argument - want to explain how exactly this point is relevant?

No, they weren't. The speakers, Jackson and Sharpton, were giving their endorsements, but that is NOT the same thing as the churches' preachers giving an endorsement. The first is allowed under the IRS code for churches' participation in political activities. The second is not.

Umm, isn't that exactly what I'm saying? The US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. That's why religion will still be relevant even if one does not refer to the "church".

p.s. you don't really like me, do you?

well if you wish to get technical, the majority of governments around the world are based on one religion or another (or combinations there of). but there are states in the west that are able to keep religion and state far more separate that the us. it's really kind of sad when politicians have to pull the religion card because they can't formulate a stong enough policy or argument for their policies to base their election campaign on. our country has become so superficial and dummied down that the majority of people are too busy or lazy to critically think about the underlying policies that are in place or are being proposed. i am not going to vote for someone based on their religion. although if they are constantly cramming their religion and religious views down my throat, there's a pretty good chance that i won't be voting for them. and in all honesty if this bombardment of religious propaganda via governmental representatives continues, i may look into extending my student visa down here into a permanent resident visa. the usa has just gotten so rediculous in recent years i can't even put up with it anymore.

Question: What should a politician do if his or her political beliefs go against his or her religious faith? Up here in Canada, our Prime Minister, who is Roman Catholic, apparently had a call from a bishop prior to the June elections because Martin is pro-choice. I have heard that Catholic officials in the US have questioned Kerry about the same issue as well.

if i were a politician and my personal beliefs were different from my religious beliefs, i would have to put personal before religion. religion should be used as a guide, not the end-all be-all of your life. if you follow your religion but deviate from some views, there's nothing wrong with that. just becuase you're a person of faith (and i mean that to encompass anyone who practices religion, not just the higher-ups), does not mean that you have to take stock in every single word that your religious book tells you. religion should make you think and critically analyze your life and surroundings. too many people are blind followers and never criticize or question their religion. doing so does not makes you a bad persion. it makes you an educated person.
i personally commend kerry for promoting views contrary to his religion. he can still be a faithful man (in the religious sense) without following the scripture verbatim.

You're wrong.

In general, the forefathers of our nation, when mapping out the country, utilized secular principles to found it. See e plurbus unim, an adaptation of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property", etc.

"In God We Trust" didn't come until much later - on some coins due to an unfortunate misappointment of a pro-Christian man by Lincoln in the 1860s, and then on bills as a backlash against 'Godless Communism' in 1956.

Again, this is why I bring up relevance to the conversation. The statement is misguided, unfounded, and patently false - I can see where you got the ideas, but they're interpolation rather than fact.

-RC
--PS - I don't hate you at all, I'm just correcting the factual errors you've posted and attempting to bring some of your posts back to the topic. We don't butt heads in other forums, and I don't want you to stop posting here - just take it for what it is, an attempt to correct your misconception.

Basically the church and state thing came from the Friggen ACLU, the biggest disruptors of American Life as We know it.

Dont disciplne Kids, Parents and teachers, crime among younger children has gone up.

All Countrys have some form of demonstrateive religion. Just look at Islamic Countrys who toatlly rule their countrys.

Take In God We Trust off of American Coinage are they friggen Nuts.

A Judge In the South taken off of the Supreme Court for fighting the Taking down of the 10 Commandments.

Who was Moses and when the Commandments given to Him.

Do not all peoples beleive in a God and just call it someone else?

Is my God Better than yours? Well maybe it or HE/SHE is just named differently.

Hell, most of this stems back when Relegion Roman Catholic Church owned A lot of the Ground, had most of the money and ran political operations in Countrys.

That time is over, people are not as poor in many areas and feel and have the right to vote that they did not have in days of Yore, You know before you and youre were there!

Funny, I noticed when Kerry made a statement, Jackson looked at him with a Say What look!

Jackson and Sharpton are not the two best examples that should be used.:(

They too have their agendas for what they want. If you dont think so, then think again. $$$ Rules and BS walks!

Even if that were so, most, if not all of the founding fathers were Christian. They would have influenced the principles, even if it was unintentional.

This argument is seriously flawed as well.

1.) It is purely conjecture.

2.) The fact of the matter is that these men went out of their way to utilize secular principles as often as possible.

Now, take into consideration that they called for a separation of church and state to begin, and I think you've lost any footing you had, right? I see where you're coming from, but it's just not a valid argument.

The Founding Fathers of the United States considered incorporating Christianity into the government, and led by Benjamin Franklin, soundly rejected this. Ben Franklin was very worldly, and even made explicit references to the tolerance of Muslims during some of his arguments for the Seperation of Church and State.

It's hard to have a clean slate when you're an adult, so I stand by what I said about influence. No matter how "worldly" one is, one's upbringing will likely come in to play when making even the most important decisions. Things become more difficult with elected officials who have to represent their respective area, which may be made up of people who may have stronger or weaker religious beliefs, but that's probably something entirely different.

Here's my take on it...

I am a Christian. I personally have no problem saying "Under God" in the pledge or having "In God We Trust" on the money, etc. However, I would be up in arms if it suddenly changed to "Under Allah" or "In Buddah We Trust". Since I would be so upset if someone else's "God" was so integrated into our society, I don't think that MY God should be imposed on them. I don't want a Catholic President proposing that all birth control be illegal due to his religious beliefs. I don't want a strict conservative declaring that playing cards or dancing is illegal, because of their religion.

My children pray anywhere they want, any time they want. Nobody can stop you from praying. It is not illegal for children to pray silently to their God at school. What's wrong is forcing prayer on children whose parents do not hold the same beliefs as whoever decides which prayers to use. Everybody who is for prayer in school seems to believe that only Christian prayers would be used. What if your child's teacher was Muslim and pulled out the mats and had everybody face Mecca? How comfortable would you be with that?

You can argue that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, but you can also argue that it was simply founded on being humane to others. You don't have to be Judeo-Christian to believe that all men are created equal, that we have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence. The PreAmble to the Constitution goes like this:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nothing about religion in there...

Dee

yes, the founding fathers may have chosen to leave religion out of the founding of the US, but all western law is based on religion, parimarily judeo-christian religions. the western idea of "right" and "wrong" is based on religon. trace it back to its furtherst roots and you will find that more often than not that western law is based on religious morality.

.

Maybe more social morality than religious.

possibly, but almost all western societal morals are based on judeo-christian morals.

How 'furtherest' back do we need to go? Hammurabi? That wasn't exactly judeo-christian as I would picture it.

Rome? Again, don't let 'roman catholic' fool you - for MANY years it was not at all a Christian society.

Another mistake here is considering the day-to-day laws of a nation versus its founding principles. The Separation of Church and State as we know it is a completely secular founding principle - it has nothing to do with municipalities that choose to make liquor sales illegal on sundays, etc, and so I don't see the relevance of the argument to this discussion.

This has me LOL!!!

You know what people??

I know a bit about the "furtherest" development of the laws. And indeed, much of what was European common law up until...oh... the Reformation maybe was based on

A) Roman Law (particularly Justinian's Code) (SECULAR)
B) Germanic tribal law (PAGAN!)

so yeah.

The Roman Catholic Church had its own entirely separate court system.

Then, in the Reformation you do indeed find muncipal courts trying people for religious infractions (think Northern European witch trials, Salem witch trials etc....)

But when you get back to the Enlightenment (which is what a great deal of the concepts in the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, etc.) are based on, you find that separating religion from the government was what thinkers wanted. Many of the founders of the United States weren't even Christians in the traditional sense--they were Deists really.

Look at the French Revolution, where we see the ideals of the American Revolution carried much further. What do we see? They got rid of the Church's privileges, set up a new religious system based around "The Supreme Being", etc.

This is why history is important!

I haven't even taken a course on Western Legal Development (although one is offered at W&L and I assume at most self-respecting universities) and I know this...

"Furtherest" wins the award for GC Fake Word of the Day!