What Is Separation Of Church And State?

[goldinero 0]

I had always thought that in the United States, separation of church and state meant that the state (government) did not influence or control the church (religious gatherings, organization, etc.). I believe that was the original intent. But it recently came to my intention that separation of church and state is rarely practiced by the church.What I mean is that every major religion that I am aware of is incorporated as a non-profit or not-for-profit organization. The reasons for incorporating are many, but seem to primarily consist of getting certain protections and privileges only afforded incorporated entities.So how does incorporating violate the fundamental belief that people in the United States enjoy separation of church and state? Because every corporation, for-profit or not-for-profit, is a person created by the state. And to have a separation between church and state, you certainly can not have the church as a state-created entity.I am not saying that NO churches are separate from the state. But those that are incorporated certainly are not. And pastors of these churches are likely influenced by the state as to what they can or cannot preach. Although this influence may be very subtle, it is there.

[Tyssen 0]

I actually think the original intent of that saying was that the Church not control the State, not the other way around.

[heavensounds 0]

As far as I know, this separation means that church has nothing to do with leading or boss-ing the country in which it exists..If we look at the Islamic religion in let's say Iraq (as it is so popular right now ), there we can see that religion plays or lets say played, since now democracy is being tried out there, a basic role in leading groups of that country. Religion is used there to make people do stuff, that is in no way of religious nature but entirely political and vice-versa because if you are ranked high in religious circles than you will be able to have great effect on political decisions too..But if we look at let's say Germany, there are two different and seperated organizations. One of them is The Curch and on the other side there is The Government which is a democratic top of the country. Here Church has its own party and can in this way influence the political and other state-decisions, BUT we cannot say that it has full power or that someone in the highest hierarchical position in Church has the highest position in the Government!That was my point of view..If someone has anything to add or thinks I am wrong please let me know

[Static_Fury 0]

The original intent for separation of church and state was simple, very simple it was so the state lon longer supported churches finalcialy. It just has been twisted and distorted over time. And as fare has pastor/preacher/or what ever else you want to call them being influenced on what to preach, thats 100% wronge.

[moonwitch 0]

I may start a flame war for this, but uhm, seperation of church and state... It may have been law, it may have worked... But thanks to Bush the two are now once again walking hand in hand. eg. anti abortion law : because God says it's wrong?At some point the world will once again be like the Medieval Times (and I'll be burnt on the stakes...)

[leiaah 0]

I think it means that Church business remains the business of the Church and the affairs of the government remains just that of the government.

 

Here in the Philippines during the time of the Spanish occupation (1521-1898) there is a thing called the Union of Church and State wherein the Governor-General has religious powers and can therefore practice religious privileges and he can mandate certain policies using the Church as a way to make the people submit to the government.

 

Today of course is totally different. The Church still has a say on the government but religious functions aren't given to the leaders of the state only to the religious leaders. The government as well can't mandate the Church to do as what the leaders have instructed. That's why they on't always agree on certain issues. An example is the use of contraceptives as a means of birth control which is being encouraged by the state but is abhored by the Church.

 

Is this a school assignment?

[emperor 0]

Yes, I agree with Tyssen. When it was ideated, the separation, would be a way to take away powers from the Church. But I have to admit that often the Church has still many powers, here in Italy particularly. With Lateranensi's Pacts made by Mussolini and the Pope in 1929, the Catholic Church has received back many power taken away in the XIX century during the Italian Indipendence Wars. For example exist the reliogious hour at school (now you can choose to don't attend it) and the 8X1000 (when you declare your incomes to tax office, you can choose to destiny the 0.8% of you taxes to the state or to churchs, many citizens don't make any preferences. So, according to the law, all this 0.8% will go to who have received more preferences: the Catholic Church). This give many powers and money to Chruch, or not? Then Italian citizens have many contacts with the church, for example many of them haven't voted at the last referendum becasue the Pope has asked that (it was a referendum about the research on embryos).Yes, the separation doesn't exist.

[biscuitrat 0]

I hate how the church is trying to get so many laws passed. Not all people believe what a church belives, but if said church is a majority, it's probably a futile fight. I don't like having to obey laws ordained by a God I don't even worship.

[kasm 0]

I had always thought that in the United States, separation of church and state meant that the state (government) did not influence or control the church (religious gatherings, organization, etc.).  I believe that was the original intent.  But it recently came to my intention that separation of church and state is rarely practiced by the church........

166209[/snapback]

The absolute separation of Church and State is myth

1. It is freedom of religion and separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority.. not the Separation of Church and State absolutely.

 

2. The absolute separation of Church and State as if there is a wall between them .. is a myth.

 

3. Many people think the statement "Separation of Church and State" appears in the first amendment of the U.S. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads:

 

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

4. Such amendment

 

- ensures that religious beliefs are removed from attempted government control.

 

- ensures that the government cannot tell either individual or church what to believe or to teach.

 

- ensure that the government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God

 

5. I consider that this amendment contains a declaration of the principle of a "religious liberty" or freedom of religion.

 

6. In fact the same can be read from the unamended constitution, Article VI, Section III

 

" but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

This article had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government

 

7. Some argument that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.

 

8. In fact the statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

 

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.  (1)

9. They said that the reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. But using "separation " by a president doesn't constitute fact. (2)

 

The meaning of Separation is not absolute .

 

11. The word separation can be used to indicates:

 

- separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority

 

- religious liberty or freedom of religion.

 

- The government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines

 

- The government cannot tell either individual or churches what to believe or to teach.

 

- The government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God

 

- no alliance between church and state in the national government

 

The U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles

 

The founding fathers of US constitution were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.

 

Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community.

 

The U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) . The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive(2).

 

The US founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny.

 

Don't forget that the majority of US Citizen are Christian

 

This affects other matter as:

 

- Thanksgiving, Christmas , Easter holidays

 

- Sundays holiday

 

- The phrase "In God we Trust" on dollar tell that we

 

- Swearing ends with "help me God"

 

- One spouse , no stealing, no killing , no perjury, ... are from the bible.

 

 

Separation doesn't mean zero influence:

 

- Exactly as the President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated.

 

- The president can influence the supreme court by appointing judges from particular thinking. These judges will not abide with the president wishes and they will stay as their life permit while the president appointed them will retire after few years.

 

- In the same times church can influence state but not directly:

 

- Also the state can influence churches by- suggesting laws restricted people or churches. For example allowing abortion, allowing cloning, pressuring on Islamic leaders to not preaching Jihad in the name of God and to condemn suicide bombing.

 

- So why should the church not be allowed to influence the state?

 

- by telling their opinion on current issues, by influence their member can promote to elect candidate who are coincide with the church teaching . As example the second election of President Bush in the second term [51%] by the votes of Evangelists.

 

The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness and justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys country's foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.

 

The separation of church and state must be understood as separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, perjury, single spouse which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

 

The state should not be allowed to interfere with churches.

 

There simply cannot be any religious freedom if the state is allowed to dictate to churches what they may and may not teach, what permissible dogmas they can hold, and so on.

 

References:

1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.

 

2. The Myth of Separation of Church and State http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

 

3. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.

 

4. US Constitution

 

5. The Bill of Right