Is separation of church and state still important?

2015-06-09T12:43:34-04:00

Is seperation of church and state still an important national policy? How is it actually being followed? What are the threats to it? Is church too involved in politics? Or is the government too involved in churches? What is the benefit of seperation of church and state? What is not good about it?

As for me, I think it is a good thing. I don't want my government telling me how or who to worship or pray to. At the same time, I don't want my church telling me how to vote or dictating to non-church members how to live their lives. I believe that if a person is coerced to practice religion or a belief system through government policy, it damages the authenticity of the religion. Where are you on this issue?

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Nov 17 at 2013 12:57 PM

2013-11-17T12:57:12-05:00

On the flip side, many who roll out the "free exercise of religion," especially when it comes to its use in government, really only choose to allow the free exercise of their specific religion and get angry when other religions try to exercise their beliefs in the same or similar manner. I disagree with your assessment of Thomas Jefferson's "Separation of Church and State" quote.  Here is the quote in context: "Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." It seems to me that Jefferson was clearly addressing the fact that religious institutions, churches, that would use government power to support any religion were contrary to the civil rights of the people.  This doesn't seem to be concerning government meddling in religious affairs at all.  I support the right of all people to practice their faith or lack-thereof how and when they want.  I do not, however, support them with government dollars or time - unless those dollars and time are equally available to ALL religions.  And to bring this back into a military context - how many "prayer breakfasts" for we all been to?  Aside from the Bible, how many other religious books are read from and how many other gods are openly prayed to at those events?  For me, aside from the ones I personally influenced as  Company Commander, the answer is zero.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2013 10:30 PM

2013-11-17T22:30:20-05:00

As I have stated below, I think those who acrimonious to religion, especially Christianity at this point, are projecting their own beliefs and not the actual intent. As described below, Mr. Jefferson explained himself, knowing there would be challenges.

I bash no one's faith or lack thereof, but I am amused at the vitriol and pettiness that some have against 'Christianity'. Atheists are fine with me until they go overboard and act with bad intentions

As a scientist, I am playing this close to the vest, because again, your beliefs are yours and yours alone.

Response by TSgt Marcial Guajardo made Nov 18 at 2013 9:45 PM

2013-11-18T21:45:28-05:00

A correct reference to the best of my knowledge. It may be relevant to try and understand the historical context of this concept. I believe the intent was that government should not integrate power vested in a "state" church with political responsibility and power as was de facto practice in England where the King partially derived his power via his allegiance to the Church of England, often used to suppress or repress other religions. The interpretation today is a perversion and I don't think this concept was ever intended to stop people from praying in public schools or referencing God in government ceremony or practice. The founding fathers were devout believers.

Response by SSgt James Stanley made Nov 19 at 2013 8:55 PM

2013-11-19T20:55:36-05:00

With all the references to God in the writings of our forefathers and the signers of the Declaration of Independence, it's hard to understand how anyone could interpret the first Amendment to mean that there should be a separation of Church from the State. It seems pretty plain to me when it says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion that the framers of our government did not want the same problems that England and Mexico had with their national religion. Especially in Mexico where their natural treasures were being shipped off to Europe. In most recent years it seems that government has completely disregarded the other part that says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Response by SN Thomas Cooney made Apr 2 at 2014 8:49 PM

2014-04-02T20:49:24-04:00

Church is about, for me, Jesus! Jesus has taught about sacrifice and Love! It's hard to find that in some Religions!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2014 10:32 PM

2014-05-07T22:32:46-04:00

Sir, well stated. Sadly, many have deliberately twisted the Constitution for their own devious means, specifically to demean, belittle and silence Christians.

Personally, I don't care what belief system a person maintains as long as they DON'T cram it down others' throats or they are deliberately trying to inflict harm. This is regardless of the belief system whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, pagan, agnostic, Buddhist, etc etc etc. Leave people alone to do as they so choose.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made May 28 at 2014 11:20 AM

2014-05-28T11:20:55-04:00

Sir,

You are correct. The question in my mind is why would someone who with no religous belief even care what others...you and I, I would assume...believe? What is behind their opposition to religion?

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made May 28 at 2014 4:28 PM

2014-05-28T16:28:18-04:00

Well said indeed 1LT D. I totally agree that the separation between church and state has been twisted to try to suppress religion. This, to me, is a violation of the first amendment by the government, especially the Supreme Court, who has ruled that any religious displays on government property is a violation of freedom of religion.
As you stated in your remarks, Separation of church and state is not mentioned in the Constitution or any other official document, however, it is used as an argument in the Supreme Court as though it were in the Constitution.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 5:11 PM

2014-06-01T17:11:51-04:00

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/31/marriage-only-for-christians/

So basically stuff like this is okay with you, 1LT Dubyoski? I call bullcrap. Our government is supposed to be a government of ALL the people, not just those who share the religious beliefs of those in office.

Virginia Court Official Tells Atheist Couple They Have No Right To Get Married Because They Don’t...

An over-religious court official in Virginia has a message for atheists and any other non-Christian - you have no right to get married if you don't believe in God.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 1:59 AM

2014-09-17T01:59:29-04:00

My interpretation has always led me to understand that the separation works both ways. The government stays out of the business of the church and vice versa, that way you didn't have the government telling people what religions they could and couldn't practice and you also wouldn't end up with a theocracy. That doesn't mean that the word god can't be shown anywhere in government buildings or be referenced in documents. God is a universal term whether you're talking about the God that Christians and Jews pray to, Allah, Buddha, Shiva, Zeus, Osiris... They're all gods or another name for God.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 9 at 2015 12:45 PM

2015-06-09T12:45:22-04:00

The government is too involved in churches.

The First Amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

The government is continually prohibiting the free exercise of religion in areas that have no bearing on the establishment of a state religion.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 9 at 2015 12:46 PM

2015-06-09T12:46:01-04:00

More important then ever. There are so many religions out there that government has to be "non-denominational"

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 12:50 PM

2015-06-09T12:50:13-04:00

The marriage of church and state is the death of liberty. This has been shown time after time in states that endorse a particular religion, or mandate no religion at all.

Religious privilege is an extension of this and serves as tacit endorsement by the government, and by extension, the People. Since this is not true, I believe a gradual rolling back of such policies is necessary.

Sorry folks, but in this instance, tradition is irrelevant. "In God We Trust" needs to go, because we don't, we shouldn't, and we can't.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 12:53 PM

2015-06-09T12:53:26-04:00

I know it was important enough to make the grievances list in the Declaration but cut down to freedom of religion in the Constitution. Sir, it seems to me this country was founded on Christian ideals but all have the right to practice anything or nothing at all. (Unless polygamy, drug use etc is part of the practice of one's particular religion.) I don't see much change now, with the exception of drastically increased tolerance for all religions/spirituality (and no religion) with the exception of Christianity.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 9 at 2015 1:17 PM

2015-06-09T13:17:26-04:00

The following statement is sarcasm:

Separation of church and state is only a good thing when it comes to Christianity.

Seriously though, yes it is a good thing.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Jun 9 at 2015 1:22 PM

2015-06-09T13:22:20-04:00

we should follow the example of Pres. Franklin Pierce who Affirmed his oath of office with his hand on a Law Book

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jun 9 at 2015 1:33 PM

2015-06-09T13:33:36-04:00

While the USA consists primarily of Christians, the US government is a secular government and should remain that way.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 1:35 PM

2015-06-09T13:35:37-04:00

I agree wholeheartedly with your stance. I think the only way for there to be legitimate freedom of belief/non-belief, is for the gov't to not take any side one way or the other, nor involve itself in matters of religious belief/non-belief one way or another.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jun 9 at 2015 1:42 PM

2015-06-09T13:42:04-04:00

I think it is the upmost important, look at countries that are theocracies like Iran. People can worship who they want but if there was no separation then we'd be in a situation where people would be telling people who to worship. The church is too involved in politics IMO, but there are a lot of lobbyists in politics. Politics lacks a level of purity it would have in a perfect world.

Some of the threats religious people make about others can be a bit terrifying or just totally laughable but with the separation we need not worry such wild ideas would come true.

I'm an atheist, but I also get the idea that legislation sessions open with a prayer, usually a Christian one. I see it as tradition. I think though if they're going to do this, they should alternate between other religions also.

I've noticed when "religious freedom" laws are used by non Christians for their religion, it at times creates some butt hurt as the Christians who helped get those laws passed, didn't intend for other religions to use them.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 9 at 2015 1:51 PM

2015-06-09T13:51:38-04:00

Many are concerned that the Government is too involved saying it's freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Always go to the source: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." It is silent on the other side of the coin, hence the courts weighing in ever since. Always a lot of arguments on what the framers intended but most of the time it's stuff they never though about as there was no reason to do so.

So the SCOTUS rulings tend to fall into two categories. They uphold Founding Father stuff like "In God We Trust" and "Under God" which was an add to the pledge during the '50s. They seem to conclude that benign recognition of Judeo-Christian foundation of our country isn't a problem. The other way they rule is when there is the appearance of Government sponsored support of religion. There wasn't an act of Congress involved but rather how an agency policy relates to the First Amendment. Those are the prayers in public schools and nativity scenes in the government building stuff. Recently there have been cases involving violation of religious beliefs colliding with anti-discrimination laws. There is no bright line so no matter what way they lean, they'll be hated by whoever feels they lost.

So why bring this up? For everything you may be torqued about over Government intrusion in religious matters, either way, consider the appalling behavior of state sponsored religion governments. It's virtually impossible to be accountable to the people by always hiding behind a cloak of religion. Once you get a handle on how people can corrupt religion to gain power, then you see the imperative to keep our Government out of it. There's a bunch of countries where the government works under the religious leadership.

Interesting enough if you visit many of the state sponsored religion countries that are somewhat benevolent and not full bore tyrants, such as Thailand, the people think we're the crazy ones because it's the government's job to foster a national culture and the religion that goes with it. That's the harmony argument. You see shrines in all schools and public buildings. The rub though is when there is an influx of immigrants that have a different religion. State sponsored religion governments consider it a threat.

I tend to be a Republicrat. I want Government out of private matters which includes some liberal and some conservative issues. I certainly want it out of everyone's religious life or nonreligious if they choose. I abhor those who substitute themselves for God. It's a personal journey, sometimes a guided tour, but never dictated by a mere human.

God Bless Chap!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 9 at 2015 2:03 PM

2015-06-09T14:03:14-04:00

It's the separation of Church & State (capital Church, capital State). These are philosophical constructs, which must have clear delineation.

Think of it like the Chain of Command. Can you have "two bosses" in a true Chain of Command? Ignoring OpCon, AdCon, FireCon, which is delineation of resources, and looking truly at "Command," the US separates Politics (State) from Religion (Church). It does not separate Belief, which is an intermixed concept.

The "Representative" Head of State in the US is the President. He answers to the American People. As does Congress (since we have direct representation). They do not have a "second boss." They don't answer on matter of politics to a Church, a Religious Organization, such as the Vatican or the Church of England.

Having a "second boss" is counter to our elected representatives being directly accountable to the People. Simply put, it creates a conflict of interests. The Framers identified this based on 18th century & previous Europe and avoided that pitfall, by making a secular nation.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 2:17 PM

2015-06-09T14:17:37-04:00

The government needs to stay out of the church and the church needs to stay out of the government. Simple as that. Especially when politicians (and their voters) use their religious beliefs to invoke laws.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jun 9 at 2015 2:27 PM

2015-06-09T14:27:59-04:00

We have seen in midevil times what happens when church and state are combined.
There is no place in this country for church and state to ever combine. The separation of church and state was set forth by our forefathers for a reason.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Jun 9 at 2015 2:42 PM

2015-06-09T14:42:25-04:00

Now more than ever.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jun 9 at 2015 2:45 PM

2015-06-09T14:45:17-04:00

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 3:47 PM

2015-06-09T15:47:00-04:00

The easiest answer to the question is to change the question.

Is the separation of Mosque and State still important?
Is the separation of Temple and State still important?
Is the separation of Synagogue and State still important?
Is the separation of Atheism and State still important?

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 9 at 2015 3:57 PM

2015-06-09T15:57:55-04:00

Very important. We can observe today what theocracies in other parts of the world are like.....and it's not good.

Response by SGT John Wesley made Jun 9 at 2015 5:22 PM

2015-06-09T17:22:22-04:00

Absolutely!

I can just look to the Middle East and point out the failures of allowing religion to mingle with statecraft.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Jun 9 at 2015 6:55 PM

2015-06-09T18:55:01-04:00

There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter mentioning it. If you repeat the lie maybe people will start to believe it.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 6:55 PM

2015-06-09T18:55:51-04:00

Separation of church and state is often misconstrued such as saying that due to the words one nation under God the pledge of allegiance should not be recited in schools. Or that students area de to believe they are not allowed to pray or display their faith at school. But the intention of the founding fathers was to keep religion from being the ruling authority o the government, much like the Church of England. And it also was designed to prevent the government from controlling how when or where people worship or choose to believe. How do you believe this is working? Look at the current issues with same sex marriage. It is largely the church that is fighting this and think the government should support their beliefs.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 9 at 2015 6:57 PM

2015-06-09T18:57:43-04:00

More important than ever with religion being politicized and some dominionists believing that this country should be a theocracy. I'm saddened by the way some extremists have tried to weaponize religion.

I think that those churches that preach politics should be taxed.

I don believe that Jesus would recognize the faith of his followers in some cases.

How about Rev Creflo ,Dollar and his new $695, K plane?

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Jun 9 at 2015 7:17 PM

2015-06-09T19:17:28-04:00

A much misunderstood concept. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution prohibits the creation of an official state religion, or requiring people to worship in any particular way. It does not say anything about the government having to be agnostic or hostile to religion. Like many great constitutional principles, this was has been twisted by many people who want it to mean something different that what is written.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jun 9 at 2015 8:10 PM

2015-06-09T20:10:56-04:00

Most people including service members do not know what "separation of church and state" means. Some uninformed individuals will falsely say I am in violation of separation of church and state when I say a blessing to myself before lunch while at work which is totally incorrect. Separation of church and state has to due to not allowing my religious beliefs influence government decisions. Lets use common sense; I am sure everyone agrees that "thou shall not murder" and "thou shall not steal" are pretty good commandants to have in government as laws. Separation of church and state is necessary for a more fair and impartial government.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 8:35 PM

2015-06-09T20:35:56-04:00

The problem with this issue involves a gross misinterpretation of the "establishment clause". As anything else is anecdotal quoting of statements allegedly by one or more of the founding fathers (thus having no real binding nor legislative authority) we need to focus on the actual document. This clause simply states that government shall pass no law respecting an establishment of a religion. Contextual view on this is fairly simple. We had recently declared independence from a nation that had erected the Church of England and mandated that its citizens attend said church and abide by its precepts (all so some king could get a divorce pushed through). So it is understandable why the founding fathers would ensure that such tyranny would not occur in this newly soverign nation. The interpretation of constitutional law (as defined within the parameters of that governing document) is a responsibility that falls upon the Supreme Court. It has come up in regards to the use of religious symbols on public land (Van Orden V Perry, Salazar V Bueno, etc). In those cases it was ruled that erecting new religious symbols (in nearly all these cases crosses) on public land was a violation of this clause, but have not truly addressed existing monuments (are we going to eliminate the crosses in military cemeteries?). As for prayer in school... That was address in Engel V Vitale where it was deemed unconstitutional to have a school sponsored prayer regardless of denomination or participation requirements. While I may not agree with this interpretation of the establishment clause (I firmly believe it was designed to protect religion and its practice or right not to practice from government involvement and NOT to make it so that someone doean to have to see it being practiced) I defer to this as it is part of our legislative action. You will note, however, that even these rulings had NOTHING to do with an individual having the right to pray wherever they choose. It never should. It bothers me that we have begun to view legislation of all sorts as a means to protect the "rights" of one while trampling the rights of others. How is it a cogent argument to say that allowing a child to pray in school or organize his own prayer voluntary prayer group/bible study/etc violates the rights of those whose ethics don't agree with the premise, but then turn around and say it is the right of the LGBT community to form their own groups and functions in that same school even though it's contrary to the ethics of others? Prizing one groups rights over another has become a common practice and its despicable. Legislation does not create freedom. Freedom is not protecting one group at the expense of another. The only true freedom is to eliminate the legislations involvement as it pertains to the individual.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Jun 9 at 2015 10:03 PM

2015-06-09T22:03:54-04:00

I am pretty sure this has already been said.
The separation of church and state is a misnomer.
To paraphrase, the government shall not establish a state religion or interfere with freedom to worship.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 11:37 PM

2015-06-09T23:37:46-04:00

It's never been more important. I want nothing to do with religion, and most certainly don't want someone else's spiritual beliefs influencing my government.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jun 10 at 2015 1:09 AM

2015-06-10T01:09:36-04:00

I understand very well as here I pay a church tax!

Response by SGT Anthony Rossi made Jun 10 at 2015 1:52 AM

2015-06-10T01:52:23-04:00

Firmly agree, forced faith is no faith at all. We don't need forced theory's or forced faith pushed by our government. Having said that an exchange of ideas regardless of secular or religious origins should be free to influence political policy. After all the government is supposed to represent it's people. Therfore the peoples beliefs should dictate policy regardless of perspective.

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jun 10 at 2015 6:30 AM

2015-06-10T06:30:33-04:00

I would say yes. Do many people remember why most of the original colonists actually came here? To escape the oppression that was State Religion. I really don't want to go back to that. Personally, I have an issue with anyone that tries to push their version of religion, or lack thereof, on anyone.

Response by SFC Daniel Zelch made Jun 12 at 2015 8:13 AM

2015-06-12T08:13:27-04:00

There is no mention of separation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution. The first amendment, which covers freedom of religion, was intended to limit the gov't. Great Britan had a state approved religon. The first amendment was an attempt to prevent this.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 6 at 2015 10:23 AM

2015-07-06T10:23:45-04:00

More than ever!
http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-War-Between-Science/65400/

The New War Between Science and Religion

Accommodationist scientists are afraid of antagonizing a religious mainstream America. That’s silly. In the end, the truth will out.

Response by SSG Paul Setterholm made Jul 6 at 2015 10:24 AM

2015-07-06T10:24:10-04:00

I believe anytime a church takes a political stance on an issue they should lose their tax exempt status. (Personally, all religions should not have a tax exempt status) republicans push for a Christian nation, liberals do not have a stance on religion in the democratic platform just as the founding fathers intended. I have coworkers, who came to America for religious freedom. We should respect the rights of ALL Americans not just the ones you agree with.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2015 6:06 AM

2015-08-10T06:06:22-04:00

Something that a lot of people fail to realize when they're throwing around the separation of church and state argument is that Thomas Jefferson made reference to the separation of church and state in a letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut. To quote the letter..

"Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem."

That is where the phrase separation of church and state comes from. And, as can be seen by reading the body of President Jefferson's letter, it just means that the government won't establish a national religion nor will the government prohibit the free exercise of a religion.

To say that no reference to God can be made by the government makes us citizens of Great Britain, because the Declaration of Independence would be null and void. It makes reference to God a couple of times in the first two paragraphs..

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 14 at 2015 2:38 PM

2015-08-14T14:38:49-04:00

It is. But religion should be a guide.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Aug 14 at 2015 2:52 PM

2015-08-14T14:52:37-04:00

Well said. "People who do not study history are condemned to repeat it"

This country was founded by people who were escaping the "popular" religion of the day. They were the fringe... the minority.

America is a nation that has a majority of the population that follows the Christian Bible in one form or another, but there are a multitude of religions that fight each other about the interpretation of the Bible.

I'm a free thinker bu nature. Tell me something and I will naturally seek the "source of the river". I grew up going to a Southern Baptist Christian School. By the time I left that school I was convinced that if I had to spend eternity with people like that hell would be preferable.

Then I went to war. God put me in a place without light to read, with the necessity to hear so music was out, and the need to be alert, so I couldn't sleep. He forced me to meditate and listen without distraction. It was there that I remembered the important parts of the Bible... the parts highlighted in red.

Most churches I visit don't share my beliefs... In my opinion they ignore the simple truth of Christ... they seek to control people using the scripture as a club rather than liberate people with the love of Christ. ...in my opinion...

And that's why mixing religion and politics scares the crap out of me... I just feel like we're going to end up subjects of the Church of England again.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Apr 11 at 2016 4:52 PM

2016-04-11T16:52:59-04:00

Your question is actually another example of the corruption of what is actually protected and from that corruption we can find much of the decay in our culture. There is not and never was a statement of a 'separation of church and state' but 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. A miss understanding in the belief complete separation of church has led many to attempt to prohibit the free exercise thereof...such belief in the lie that the truth is infringed upon. NO we should not have a state religion but we then allow the corruption to go unopposed either?