Charles Darwin

Speaking of conflicts, can anyone explain why Church-State Separation is not self contradictory? It seems that the notion must entail a religious claim about God (there is no God, or it is not in the will of God for the state to follow His will, etc.). If Church-State Separation entails a religious claim, then the state is not being separated from the church, but is actually adhering to a particular church.

Feather

It's simple. The First Amendment (the Church-State clause) does not state "No Gods exist, therefore the State shall not entangle itself in Church matters of any kind." It simply states that the Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion (i.e. that the Congress won't make laws endorsing, supporting, affirming, hindering, or otherwise actively impacting a religion). It makes no claims about the existence of any deity, and in fact makes no claims about any religion at all.

Charles Darwin

I'm afraid the fact that your First Amendment fails to provide the reasoning does not mean there is none. This is why lawmakers debate before making laws and judges pass down their opinions -- to explain the basis for law of judgement.

Laws do not justify themselves, they simply state the law. So while you may be able to quote a law without making reference to religion, I suspect you cannot defend the law without making a religious claim.

{quote tags added for clarity by Toto}

ruby-soho

That clause in the Constitution is easy to defend without making any "religious claims". It simply states that the government will in no way support or hinder any particular religion or lack thereof. No claims about any religion there. No claims on whether God exists or not or which religious belief is better or not. It means that the Constitution is religiously neutral as our Founders intended.

And, what did you mean when you said, "...your First Amendment". Are you not a US citizen or something? Just curious.

Thanks,

D

Feather

Certainly I can. But I believe the more eloquent Founding Fathers and others can do it better. Why don't you peruse the historical library and the modern library.

You might also consider these quotes.


The arguments essentially boil down to these two notions:

1) People can (and should) govern themselves; i.e. people should make laws born of whatever reasoning they choose and not necessarily follow the dictates of any text with religious authority. (Note that this is different from claiming that people should ignore religious texts altogether for the purpose of making law.)

2) State entanglements with establishments of religion seem to hurt both parties more than help. On the one hand, the people who choose to be of a different religion than the popular one in society are outcast if not oppressed and persecuted; on the other the established popular religion must compete with the State for control over its interests. There are positive benefits to be had, to be sure, but enough to counter these two negative ones?


These are the main reasons for keeping the State from meddling in Church affairs and for keeping the Church from having an official, government endorsed and paid for platform from which to operate.

You might note that not once did I claim anything about any particular religion, as far as veracity goes.


Moreover, this is coming close to being off the primary topic of this thread. You might consider starting a new one if you are interested in pursuing the discussion further. But that is, of course, up to the topic author and the moderators. I'm perfectly happy to carry on anywhere if I feel the discussion is meaningful.

Charles Darwin

Ah, I think I figured out how to the quote. Ruby, you are making my point that laws to not justify themselves, but you have failed to provide justification for the law. Why should the state not support of hinder any particular church or religion?

ruby-soho

Glad to see you've figured that out

To answer your question, please read the excellent post by Feather, above. He states it rather succinctly and eloquently (much better than I could, btw).

Respectfully,

D

crazyfingers

I'd suggest that because the state speaks for all of us and because religion is a highly personal thing, the state can not speak for all of us on issues of religion. And when it tries to it inevitably will intrude upon what I consider the rights of each person to decide for himself what he/she thinks is correct on issues of religious faith.

Also, history is full of examples of where the end result is repression when religion is not kept separate from state.

No good happens when government power is used to support religion becasue it will always be that only particular religious views are supported while others are repressed.

lisarea

Are you serious?

It's a fundamental principle on which the US was founded. A core tenet of our constitutional republic.

The mingling of church and state only serves to dilute and bastardize both. Church-state separation protects the fundamental human freedoms of the citizenry from both sides. State endorsed religion is necessarily exclusive, in that it fails to endorse other religions or lack thereof. It also protects the interests of religion, in that the state isn't meddling in church affairs to protect political interests.

Are you arguing for making the US a theocracy?

If you can be a little more specific about what your objections or questions are, they may be a little easier to address.

Vylo

There is no religious claim made for separation of church and state. The reason is simply to prevent one group of a particular religious belief from exerting itself over all others. Basicly, it is to prevent religious oppression.