List arguments for why Religion and Govt. should be separate

[Troll from MSNBC]

I have a debate coming up soon, so I'd like to see some of the points that the guys here can come up with, based on some of the topics I've skimmed yuo guys probably know a lot about this. I don't need an argument, just a list if possible (counterarguments can also be posted, and rebuttals etc, but again, Id rather not have this turn into a debate)

[Wicked Pilot]

Religion is irrational and subjective. Law should idealy be rational and objective. Hence the incompatability.

[RedImperator]

The right to worship as one pleases is considered a fundamental and basic right in Western democratic tradition. Any involvement between church and state automatically restricts that right to a degree directly proportional to the degree of involvement between the two.

[Darth Wong]

Religious nations are inherently discriminatory, as they force people to pay money to support a religion which they do not follow, may not agree with, or may even be actively persecuted by (fine example: homosexuals forced to pay tax to support government programs which criminalize homosexuality for religious reasons).

Secular nations are not discriminatory. While some Christians would like to pretend that it is somehow discriminatory to NOT allow them to shove their religion down other peoples' throats, the fact is that any government advocacy or support for a particular religion turns a nation from a secular nation into a religious nation (see first paragraph).

George Bush's 2002 Constitution

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Two words: The Taliban

I'm also sure the Founding Fathers wanted church and state to be seperate as well.

[Rhadamanthus]

Two words: The Taliban

I'm also sure the Founding Fathers wanted church and state to be seperate as well.

Heheh, I remember there was a discussion about this at SB, and one guy said that the Founding Fathers did want seperation of Church and State, but only to keep the State from interfering with the Church, which should control the government.

[Troll from MSNBC]

Ok, these points are good, I am also thinking of maybe pointing toward the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and the problems that caused without the separation of Church and State, and how religious freedom from the English Government/Church is why the original colonists went to America in the first place.

Anyway, I'd like to see some more, but thx guys!

[Stormbringer]

A few good reasons:

• Afgahnistan
  
  Suadia Arabia
  
  Iran

Religious states never ever work. They all fall apart sooner or later, and usually in bloody revolution. And before they do they oppress, persecute and destroy. I think that is reason enough.

[Durandal]

Religion has no basis in fact. None. Would you find it acceptable to create a government based on the belief that there is a Santa Claus? No. So, why a government based on God? Both Santa Claus and God are fictional entities created for explaining things to primitive people and keeping control over the masses. Both Santa Claus and God offer rewards for what they deem as good behavior. Both Santa Claus and God can not be proven not to exist.

Both Santa Claus and God are figments of people's imaginations. The only difference is that children have an excuse to believe in Santa Claus: they're kids.

[Troll from MSNBC]

I have found a few interesting sources on the grammar of the Constitution, and a detailed analysis of the terminoligy used and how it prevents the government from unequally supporting religions (and supporting them equally, well, it pretty hard if you support any at all)

The US constituion is probably a lot of what this will focus on, as well as other law and precedent... I'll keep searching, do you guys have any other law related sources (this debate is referring to US government)

[Durandal]

I have found a few interesting sources on the grammar of the Constitution, and a detailed analysis of the terminoligy used and how it prevents the government from unequally supporting religions (and supporting them equally, well, it pretty hard if you support any at all)

The US constituion is probably a lot of what this will focus on, as well as other law and precedent... I'll keep searching, do you guys have any other law related sources (this debate is referring to US government)

That's the problem with the Constitution: it's worded in legalese, and it's disastrously unclear. We need a plain-English version.

Look at it this way. If the US government wants all people to be treated equally, then it cannot possibly adopt an official religion or do anything but maintain a strict separation between Church and State. Supporting religion of any form would automatically make certain people unequal (atheists, agnostics, non-religious people, or if Christian fundamentalists have their way, anyone who isn't Christian) and essentially second-class citizens.

For example, take homosexuality. The United States has basically what is an official sexual orientation: being heterosexual. This means that homosexuals are relegated to second-class citizen status, and that their rights can be taken away. Many states have extremely harsh penalties for anal sex between two people of the same sex, up to life in prison (no, I'm not joking). No one cares, since the official sexuality is heterosexual. This is an example of extreme governmentally-sponsored bigotry, and it is what happens when subjective beliefs are respected over everything else.

The government can only be "official" on matters in which objective assessment is possible. If it could be demonstrated that two homosexual men having sex in the privacy of their own home was harmful to a right-wing Christian preacher (I dunno, maybe he gets a boil on his ass everytime a gay guy ejaculates), then the government might have an argument for its current views on homosexuality. However, as it stands, there is no objectively-verifiable harm done by two gay guys having sex in the privacy of their own home. The people who are against it are against it because of a subjective belief system. On the other hand, someone killing someone else has objectively verifiable harm, namely that the victim's right to life was taken away, so we make a law against it. That is how the US government was supposed to work, but it's been perverted into a quasi-theocracy by right-wing Christian conservatives who wouldn't know objectivity if you repeatedly beat them over the head with a steel dildo.

If you'd like evidence of what the founding fathers thought of the separation of Church and State, head over to Positive Atheism and look at the Quotes section.

[beyond hope]

I have found a few interesting sources on the grammar of the Constitution, and a detailed analysis of the terminoligy used and how it prevents the government from unequally supporting religions (and supporting them equally, well, it pretty hard if you support any at all)

The US constituion is probably a lot of what this will focus on, as well as other law and precedent... I'll keep searching, do you guys have any other law related sources (this debate is referring to US government)

Look into the early history of the colonies, in particular the Congregationalists up in what would become Massachusetts. The intolerance is quite remarkable: compulsory church attendance punishable by fines and imprisonment, punishment of practicing any other form of Christianity by exile and death if you came back, death penalty for any member of the Jesuits found on their lands, and of course enforcement of the Old Testament laws. Bullshit like that is what the Establishment clause was written to protect us against. Also, look at the constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia: the inspiration for the Establishment Clause came from there. The phrase "seperation of church and state" also was not coined by the Supreme Court as many of the Religious Reich like to claim, rather it came from the personal writings of Thomas Jefferson.

You might want to check this out:http://www.debata.f2s.com/archive/church_state.pdf

[XPViking]

It works both ways. A secular government, to maintain order, will impose its laws upon religious people. Let me give you an example as drawn from my personal life.

Years ago, I worked up in Northern Alberta while my fiancé at the time was living about 1000 miles away. Since I was planning to voluntarily leave my job it would have fallen under the category “undue cause”. That is, I couldn’t claim unemployment insurance. A little concerned, I contacted the employment office. They told me that if a person is planning to get married then its okay. In other words, I can collect unemployment insurance. Satisfied, I then left my job with the understanding that I could collect. Collecting unemployment insurance was not the main reason for me leaving, but it was a nice bit of icing on the cake.

Imagine my surprise when my application was denied. I was referred to a case officer who said, “Well, you can collect if you live together with her.” I then informed him that living together before marriage would go against my religious belief. I was then told that there was no way I could collect. Needless to say, I lost my appeal. I admit that my first mistake was in not writing down the name of the person I talked to in Northern Alberta. Shoulda, coulda, woulda, right? Life goes on.

Hopefully, this example will show that the state will intrude and impose its own system upon those who happen to hold religious beliefs. But I do support the separation of chuch and state.

XPViking

[Durandal]

Imagine my surprise when my application was denied. I was referred to a case officer who said, “Well, you can collect if you live together with her.” I then informed him that living together before marriage would go against my religious belief. I was then told that there was no way I could collect. Needless to say, I lost my appeal. I admit that my first mistake was in not writing down the name of the person I talked to in Northern Alberta. Shoulda, coulda, woulda, right? Life goes on.

I don't mean to be crass and cold, but that's tough. Tax payers shouldn't have to hand money out to you because of your religious beliefs. That's why I was against religious school vouchers, even when I went to a religious school and paid tuition out of my own pocket my senior year.

The greater injustice is that you got two conflicting accounts from two unemployment officers.

[Falcon]

The most important part of the seperation of religion and state is that the state doesn't force any one religion(s). This doesn't mean that the state should enforce no religion, but should stay aloof as much as possible. With issues like vouchers going to religious schools I believe that doesn't violate this principle because the government isn't deciding which school that money goes to, the parent does (and that money belongs to the parent anyways).

[Sir Sirius]

Putting children in to religious schools is...recless at best, outright moronic at worst. That's how we've ended up with all these fundies and creationists in the first place.

[Enlightenment]

Putting children in to religious schools is...recless at best, outright moronic at worst. That's how we've ended up with all these fundies and creationists in the first place.

Worse. Putting children in Muslim religious schools is how we got al Qaida and the rest of the depraved Islamic terrorist (I know that's twice redundant) groups of the month.

[Durandal]

The most important part of the seperation of religion and state is that the state doesn't force any one religion(s). This doesn't mean that the state should enforce no religion, but should stay aloof as much as possible. With issues like vouchers going to religious schools I believe that doesn't violate this principle because the government isn't deciding which school that money goes to, the parent does (and that money belongs to the parent anyways).

That's utterly ridiculous. You can't have separation of church and state if the government officially supports religions in general, because then atheists are relegated to second-class citizens. You can't support one, any, many or all religions. The government must be silent about the matter entirely.

[Falcon]

The most important part of the seperation of religion and state is that the state doesn't force any one religion(s). This doesn't mean that the state should enforce no religion, but should stay aloof as much as possible. With issues like vouchers going to religious schools I believe that doesn't violate this principle because the government isn't deciding which school that money goes to, the parent does (and that money belongs to the parent anyways).

That's utterly ridiculous. You can't have separation of church and state if the government officially supports religions in general, because then atheists are relegated to second-class citizens. You can't support one, any, many or all religions. The government must be silent about the matter entirely.

Thats basically what I thought I said, I just went on to clarify that anti-religion is just as bad as pro-anyreligion.

[Durandal]

The most important part of the seperation of religion and state is that the state doesn't force any one religion(s). This doesn't mean that the state should enforce no religion, but should stay aloof as much as possible. With issues like vouchers going to religious schools I believe that doesn't violate this principle because the government isn't deciding which school that money goes to, the parent does (and that money belongs to the parent anyways).

That's utterly ridiculous. You can't have separation of church and state if the government officially supports religions in general, because then atheists are relegated to second-class citizens. You can't support one, any, many or all religions. The government must be silent about the matter entirely.

Thats basically what I thought I said, I just went on to clarify that anti-religion is just as bad as pro-anyreligion.

Your wording was a bit vague, and the context of the vouchers debate (which is a clear violation of the establishment clause) basically says that you think that it's okay for the government to give official support to religion in general, as long as it doesn't specify one, particular religion -- this is a common misinterpretation of the establishment clause.

Though, the government can't support atheism any more than it can a religion; was that what you were trying to say?

[Falcon]

That's utterly ridiculous. You can't have separation of church and state if the government officially supports religions in general, because then atheists are relegated to second-class citizens. You can't support one, any, many or all religions. The government must be silent about the matter entirely.

Thats basically what I thought I said, I just went on to clarify that anti-religion is just as bad as pro-anyreligion.

Your wording was a bit vague, and the context of the vouchers debate (which is a clear violation of the establishment clause) basically says that you think that it's okay for the government to give official support to religion in general, as long as it doesn't specify one, particular religion -- this is a common misinterpretation of the establishment clause.

Though, the government can't support atheism any more than it can a religion; was that what you were trying to say?

I believe that the only requirement of a school be that it meet an educational standard set by a group of scholars. The people who run said institution be they Christians, Buddists, Muslims, atheists, whatever, isn't consequencial so long as the school meets those scholarly standards. I think that parents should be able to send their children to a school of their choice. Ideally the government would be totally seperated from education other than the setting of scholarly standards, but I realize that won't be happening. Short answer: yes, thats what I ment...

[XPViking]

Durandel,

Sure. But it's an example of discrimination. However, the question would be as to how much power should the government wield while trying to respect religious beliefs. To say that secular governments are not discriminatory is ridiculous. Perhaps it would be better to say that secular governments tend to be less discriminatory as opposed to theocracies.

It's no different that if I made you recant a part of your belief system, Durandel, in order to collect unemployment insurance.

XPViking

[Durandal]

Durandel,

Sure. But it's an example of discrimination. However, the question would be as to how much power should the government wield while trying to respect religious beliefs. To say that secular governments are not discriminatory is ridiculous. Perhaps it would be better to say that secular governments tend to be less discriminatory as opposed to theocracies.

It's no different that if I made you recant a part of your belief system, Durandel, in order to collect unemployment insurance.

XPViking

Of course the government discriminates. However, discrimination isn't necessarily bad; it's only bad when you discriminate based on subjective conclusions. Is it bad if a construction company discriminates against HIV-positive people by not hiring them, out of concern for the rest of their work force? Of course not; he has a reasonable, objective reason to discriminate against HIV-positive people. Do employers have objective reasons to discriminate against black people? No. That's the difference.

The government's discrimination against religion is necessary in order to abide by the establishment clause. That's why religious charities and schools don't (or shouldn't) get money. Now, I don't know Asia's laws, so it's a bit hard for me to really comment on them at all beyond coming from an American separation of Church and State perspective. Also, unemployment insurance laws are a mess of their own, anyway.

[Troll from MSNBC]

The phrase "seperation of church and state" also was not coined by the Supreme Court as many of the Religious Reich like to claim, rather it came from the personal writings of Thomas Jefferson.

I believe it was a personal letter to a church in Massechusets? I will need to look more into that... I'm not sure how well the other side will be prepared, but I think that this is a good avenue to puruse

Putting children in to religious schools is...recless at best, outright moronic at worst. That's how we've ended up with all these fundies and creationists in the first place.

Not necessarily, I know plenty of poeple who aren't Relgiious at all at relgious schools, just becasue their parents don't want them in public schools, and I know of plently of relgious people in Public schools so I woulnd't go as far as to say this. But in fact, even among one family I konw who goes to a religious school claims they don't want vouchers because that will go against the separation, and it will give the Government a foothold into the religious organizations, meaning since they are putting funding toward that they will then be able to use it as leverage to excercise control... against separatino of church and state.

[beyond hope]

As an aside, I don't think pentehostiles realize the implications of chipping away at the seperation clause: can you imagine when Muslim is the majority religion in the US (which will happen at the rate their membership is growing) and the pledge gets changed again to "One nation under Allah"?