Separation of Church and State

Why do so few people understand this concept?

The Separation of Church and State was created so that we would be free
to choose our religion. It was created so that the government could not
force an official religion, like what happened in Europe, which was a huge
reason people left Europe for New England/America.

This was evidenced by the American Protestants vs. the European Catholics.

In no way is practicing religion in public, praying in public schools, or
displaying religious symbols or quotations prohibited by the Separation
of Church and State.

The Separation of Church and State exists to let each person express faith
in the religion of their choice.

The Separation of Church and State allows for practicing the religion of your
choice in public, praying to the god of your choice in public school, and displaying
religious symbols and quotations from the religion of your choice. Like most
of our Constitutional principles, it exists to give us MORE freedom, not less.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what does violate the Separation of Church and State?

Government rulings that tell us what religion to believe.
Government rulings that tell us what religion NOT to believe.
Government rulings that enforce certain religious teachings.

But there is nothing to stop voters or politicians from using their
personal moral judgements (based on religion or not) in order to
support or propose new laws.

For example, the law against murder is a principle found in Christianity,
but the law against murder does not force anyone to accept the Christian
religion.

It does enforce a "religious principle" but religion is not the only source
of making murder illegal. Making murder illegal also serves the non-religious
purpose of protecting personal life, rights, and freedoms.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now we come to the banning of religious material in legal buildings.
Those who make legal rulings must do so based on our constitution,
not on religion, but posting religious materials in legal buildings does
not force anyone to accept the ideas of any religion. So why would it
be banned? All it can do is remove one of our freedoms, and insult our
intelligence by implying that we can't read a quotation without accepting
it. People have the ability to choose not to accept everything they read.
This is proven by those who smoke after reading the surgeon general's
warning. People aren't brainless blobs that follow the suggestion of
everything they read.

The thing about the separation of church and state is that not only will the state not force its citizens to choose one religion or another, but the state itself cannot choose a religion for itself, nor can it sponsor or show favoritism toward any one religion.

That's why so many see it as unconstitutional for government buildings to display the Ten Commandments and similar such things.

So if they post the Koran next to the 10 Commandments, the favoritism is gone

My thoughts exactly!

My opinion is biased is by my Christianity but I think I'll put it in at risk of offending people.

The fact that people can't stand to have religious material in public places is because they would prefer to not be reminded of their guilt which is the main selling point of religion.

People use the excuse of separation of church, so they don't have to say "I feel guilty for my actions and this religious material is reminding me that I do feel gulity."

Having the Ten Commandments and Koran would only be covering Islam, Judaism, Christianity. If the government were to have the 10 commandments, they would also have to have something from EVERY religion. That's the only way they couldn't show favoritism. It would get way too complicated.

I agree that most people twist the separation of church and state. They seem to think it was meant to keep religion out of the government, but it was really meant to keep the government out of religion. And no, there is no reason people in office can't show religious beliefs.

I've always found it interesting how the US government has basically reversed its policy on the separation of church and state over time. From its founding to about the 20th century, the government used the law to uphold religious freedom. However, since the mid 20th century, the government has been using it to suppress religious expression.

Originally Posted by Cukeman

So if they post the Koran next to the 10 Commandments, the favoritism is gone

not only would that only cover a few out of hundreds of religions, the government is still showing favoritism towards religion itself. What about people who don't believe in religion? What about people who believe certain religions are wrong? Christians might get offended that a government building would put Islamic teaching up, Muslims might get offended if the government put Christian teaching up.

the idea is to completely separate government/state from religion entirely, that way there can be no confusion on the matter.

edit: @Hell Hawk

how, exactly, is the government using the Separation of Church and State to suppress religious expression? Give an example, with a valid source.

1) The original concept in America came about as a way for the 13 colonies, each with its own denomination as a majority, to not fear one state forcing its church on the rest. In principal, however, it applies to all religion outside of American protestant sects.

2) The Ten Commandments are also considered a part of Islam. Requiring a Qur'an to be next to the Commandments for equality is as inane as requiring the New Testament to be next to the Commandments.

3) Hey, it's been awhile, ZU.

Originally Posted by Lysis

how, exactly, is the government using the Separation of Church and State to suppress religious expression? Give an example, with a valid source.

Can't pray in school. Do I need a source?

EDIT: Holy crap it's Virtigo.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Can't pray in school. Do I need a source?

EDIT: Holy crap it's Virtigo.

you can pray in school.

the school, being a government building, cannot sponsor prayer of course, but no one can keep you, personally, from praying in school.

I can think of several stories I've read of teacher who were reprimanded or fired for expressing their religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Lysis

you can pray in school.

the school, being a government building, cannot sponsor prayer of course, but no one can keep you, personally, from praying in school.

Agreed. And public schools are also quite congenial about allowing religious gatherings as extracurricular activities (at least my high school was) outside of normal school hours, without a problem. I hear that even some secularist/atheist groups are coming into being.

EDIT in Hell Hawk:
Could you be more specific please?

Originally Posted by Hell Hawk

I can think of several stories I've read of teacher who were reprimanded or fired for expressing their religious beliefs.

first of all, source please?

second of all, the teacher is working for the school, a government building. The teacher, when teaching a class, is working for the government. Just like any other part of the government, the teacher is not allowed to sponsor one religion over another.

although I had a teacher who, in class, mentioned that she was a Christian. Something which is, apparently, not illegal. Now if she had started to teach Christian doctrine, then we might have a problem. The whole Separation thing prevents stuff like that.

students, on the other hand, can pray if they want to, as long as they aren't interrupting class. I'm sure teachers can too, as long as they don't do it when they should be teaching.

Originally Posted by Cukeman

So if they post the Koran next to the 10 Commandments, the favoritism is gone

You can have more than one favourite, you know. Even if they posted the rules of every religion, they'd be favouritising religion over non-religion, and the separation of church and state doesn't put religion on a pedestal above non-religion.

It does not mean that the government can act against religion, but neither can it act for it, and so laws being passed based on religion is a violation of the separation of church and state. This is secularisation - not a removal of religion by force, nor an enforcement of religion, simply a state where religion is entirely irrelevant as to the operation of society from the government's perspective. Hence the word "separation" - any link between or influence by religion to/on the state is a violation of the separation of church and state.

For example, the law against murder is a principle found in Christianity,
but the law against murder does not force anyone to accept the Christian
religion.

It does enforce a "religious principle" but religion is not the only source
of making murder illegal. Making murder illegal also serves the non-religious
purpose of protecting personal life, rights, and freedoms.

Making murder illegal primarily serves the secular purpose of protecting personal life, rights, and freedoms, as well as ensuring that we do not throw a wrench in the gears of society. Its status as a religious rule is entirely irrelevant when it comes to its status as law, which is why it does not violate the separation of church and state to have such a law - without it, any society, secular or not, would be unable to operate. Oh, and anti-murder rules were in force in many states long before Christianity came along, so don't act like the opposition to murder is an exclusively religious value.

Now we come to the banning of religious material in legal buildings.
Those who make legal rulings must do so based on our constitution,
not on religion, but posting religious materials in legal buildings does
not force anyone to accept the ideas of any religion. So why would it
be banned? All it can do is remove one of our freedoms, and insult our
intelligence by implying that we can't read a quotation without accepting
it. People have the ability to choose not to accept everything they read.
This is proven by those who smoke after reading the surgeon general's
warning. People aren't brainless blobs that follow the suggestion of
everything they read.

So you wouldn't mind if, say, the government posted Nazi propaganda in their buildings. Or indeed any propaganda. You may be offended by the implication that posting religious material is propaganda, and I don't care, because even atheist propaganda is propaganda. Only actual information posters would be acceptable in such an environment, since even advertisements would be relatively unacceptable to place in a courtroom. To put a poster showing a preference for any particular religion, or an opposition to any particular religion in the case of an atheist judge (supposing he had a poster like Dawkins' "there's probably no god so stop worrying and enjoy your life"), is a clear demonstration that said judge may be biased, and if he is biased, the last thing we should accept is him advertising it. Especially when the defendant may not be of that faith - the courtroom should only be imposing on them in the sense that they are accused of having broken the law, not intimidating them by giving them the knowledge that the judge in question is a devout Christian when they could be Muslim or whatever.

Also if you let a judge put up a poster announcing his faith or lack thereof, you're basically giving the defendant an excuse to apply for leave to appeal, since he'll easily be able to argue that there is bias, and saying "a judge shouldn't be affected by his personal morality" isn't a good enough bar to the claim that he may well have done so.

Originally Posted by Lysis

you can pray in school.

the school, being a government building, cannot sponsor prayer of course, but no one can keep you, personally, from praying in school.

Woops, thats right. Sorry, that was a misconception.

Originally Posted by Cukeman

In no way is practicing religion in public, praying in public schools, or
displaying religious symbols or quotations prohibited by the Separation
of Church and State.

The Separation of Church and State exists to let each person express faith
in the religion of their choice.

The Separation of Church and State allows for practicing the religion of your
choice in public, praying to the god of your choice in public school, and displaying
religious symbols and quotations from the religion of your choice. Like most
of our Constitutional principles, it exists to give us MORE freedom, not less.

You have the right to believe whatever religious belief you want, this is absolute. You are allowed to practice your religion, but this right is not absolute. For instance, you cannot break the law and justify it with your religious beliefs. Just because I believe that I must sacrifice humans to the Sun each year, does not mean that I can annually murder a human being. Likewise public buildings/entities should not have religious material as it would break the barrier between church and state. You can practice in public all you want as long as you break no code or law.

However, prayer in public schools is entirely different. If a teacher or administrator endorses a certain religion, or religion in general, they are preaching to a captive audience. They are government workers and are there to teach, not to preach. Would you not feel uncomfortable if your teacher lead you in prayer to Quetzalcoatl at the start of every class and expected you to join her?

Students are allowed to pray as long as they are not disrupting class. At my school, religious clubs are even allowed to gather before or after school on school property, but any and all of the religious activities are lead by students. I think our football team even has a student lead prayer in their huddle before each game, but I'm in the Bible belt.

I'm fine with people learning about religion from a historical standpoint, as religion has had an impact on history. However, it needs to be approached with neutrality, with no personal commentary from the teacher. Religious art can be viewed in school, and I think that's fine as well. Wouldn't it be a shame if students were never introduced to the most famous works of Michelangelo after all?

Originally Posted by Cukeman

So what does violate the Separation of Church and State?

Government rulings that tell us what religion to believe.
Government rulings that tell us what religion NOT to believe.
Government rulings that enforce certain religious teachings.

But there is nothing to stop voters or politicians from using their
personal moral judgements (based on religion or not) in order to
support or propose new laws.

For example, the law against murder is a principle found in Christianity,
but the law against murder does not force anyone to accept the Christian
religion.

It does enforce a "religious principle" but religion is not the only source
of making murder illegal. Making murder illegal also serves the non-religious
purpose of protecting personal life, rights, and freedoms.

Opposition to murder is not an entirely religious law as Lord Zero has already pointed out.

Voters can certainly use their religious moral compass when voting, but I think government officials should be above that. They are representing their employer, the government. Certainly they can practice a religion, attend church, etc., but (for example) I think painting a war in a religious light is completely inappropriate. When you are a public official you are speaking for the government and the government should be impartial to both all religions and non-religion.

Originally Posted by Cukeman

Now we come to the banning of religious material in legal buildings.
Those who make legal rulings must do so based on our constitution,
not on religion, but posting religious materials in legal buildings does
not force anyone to accept the ideas of any religion. So why would it
be banned? All it can do is remove one of our freedoms, and insult our
intelligence by implying that we can't read a quotation without accepting
it. People have the ability to choose not to accept everything they read.
This is proven by those who smoke after reading the surgeon general's
warning. People aren't brainless blobs that follow the suggestion of
everything they read.

The problem isn't that you're forcing someone to believe a religion when it's materials are in a public building, the problem is that it has no place in a public building. Posting religious material is not showing the impartiality that the government should be exhibiting.

Originally Posted by Brother_Wolf

My thoughts exactly!

My opinion is biased is by my Christianity but I think I'll put it in at risk of offending people.

The fact that people can't stand to have religious material in public places is because they would prefer to not be reminded of their guilt which is the main selling point of religion.

People use the excuse of separation of church, so they don't have to say "I feel guilty for my actions and this religious material is reminding me that I do feel gulity."

...I'm sorry, but I really don't see any merit to that accusation. I think most people are more concerned that the government would be sponsoring or favoring one religion over the next, religion as a whole vs. non-religion, or a number of larger religions over more sparsely practiced ones. I don't want to look at religious material in a government building because I think it has no place there, not because I feel guilty that I don't attend church or something equally ridiculous.

If we have to display religious Christian material, then we have to accommodate everyone else claiming to be a religion, be it Wicca, Islam, or an Aztec Revival. It becomes impractical very quickly.

Originally Posted by Brother_Wolf

My thoughts exactly!

My opinion is biased is by my Christianity but I think I'll put it in at risk of offending people.

The fact that people can't stand to have religious material in public places is because they would prefer to not be reminded of their guilt which is the main selling point of religion.

People use the excuse of separation of church, so they don't have to say "I feel guilty for my actions and this religious material is reminding me that I do feel gulity."

I missed this the first time around. I can assure you, good sir, I have no problem with my "sinful" nature, in fact I enjoy every minute of my behaviour offending your fragile little mind. No, my opposition is entirely unrelated to any perceived "guilt". The concept of separation of church and state is so far-reaching that to claim it's just to stop people from putting posters of a religious nature up in public buildings is a clear demonstration of narrow-sighted idiocy.

The heart the the matter is that parents don't want religious people teaching their kids because they think that the kids will blindly accept whatever they are told. That's like saying we shouldn't allow gay teachers to teach because they will make students gay.

I... don't really understand the question or complaint here.
Government-run/sponsored organizations can't show any favoritism or promote any particular religion. Period. It's not stopping you from being religious. It's being completely devoid of religion so nobody fricking complains that their religion isn't being represented.

Originally Posted by AttackAttack

The heart the the matter is that parents don't want religious people teaching their kids because they think that the kids will blindly accept whatever they are told. That's like saying we shouldn't allow gay teachers to teach because they will make students gay.

That is ENTIRELY different.

Originally Posted by AttackAttack

The heart the the matter is that parents don't want religious people teaching their kids because they think that the kids will blindly accept whatever they are told. That's like saying we shouldn't allow gay teachers to teach because they will make students gay.

You can be religious. I just don't want you preaching your religion to my child or leading a prayer in class. Such personal opinions on religion are inappropriate in school. You can be religious, just keep it to yourself. By all means, go to church as soon as you get out of school: just don't mix your job and your religion.

I do think it's wrong for teachers to preach and profess their religion, it's entirely unnecessary and as a government worker they are endorsing a religion. This is not right, it is chipping at the barrier. If you'd like to teach in an environment where you can spew your religious feelings, I'd recommend getting a job at a private school which focuses in that religion. Teachers are supposed to deliver fact, not opinion. They're supposed to teach my child, not convert them. Younger children DO generally accept what they are told, they often cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion.

You can be gay. I just don't want you talking about how much you are in love with men/women or your opinions on gay marriage in front of my child. You can be gay and you can have these feelings, just keep them to yourself when you're teaching since they're irrelevant. By all means, love the man/woman you want and protest for your right to marry every afternoon after school lets out, but don't mix your personal life with your job.

I don't think that you can argue that your child will turn gay because of a gay teacher, but they could certainly become more pro- or anti-gay because of their teacher's views. This is a very politicized issue at the moment. While they can certainly mention that this is an issue in the country, I also don't think that people should be pushing their political agendas upon my kids. That's not what they're there for. For instance, I wouldn't like if my child's teacher was saying that homosexuality was wrong, you're exposing my child to opinions rather than fact when they often cannot recognize the difference.

Personally, I'm more irritated that you're not doing your job. Your job is to present facts to my child and help them learn, not to spread your own opinions/agenda. If I wanted that, I would send them to a private school of my choosing. Just being gay or just being religious is not going to immediately inject bias in place of fact, but pushing your agenda certainly is going to boot fact out of the way for bias. Just be professional about it: keep your personal life out of your work life.