Poll, Do We Have Separation of church and State? Should We? Opinions from all are wanted

Hello all! first off I hope this is in the appropriate forum I was not quite sure were to put it.

I am taking a Religions Of The World Anthropology class. My last assignment that is due is a paper on the Separation Of Church and State in the US, do we have it? do we need or want it? should schools allow creationist ideas or in your opinion does that create a divide between us? .

I have it layed out what I am going to do for the body of my assignment but for a small part I would like to conduct and then include a poll on what others think. This poll is for everyone, Atheists opinions are as important as Christians, Jews and any other religious persons opinion. I would prefer short and sweet answers, yes you agree or no you do not. If you need to go into detail because you have a specific point to make then that is okay also.

This is not a debate, it is a poll I ask for respect for all who chose to give their opinion. I am asking ATS instead of friends and family because I want different perspectives from people all over the US. You might see things differently where you live than I do here in NY.

Also please say which state you live in. Thank you!

reply to post by brandiwine14


First, I live in the "Commonwealth" of Pennsylvania.

I do agree with the separation of church and state! How can someone chirp about freedom, while it only applies to "their" religious beliefs?

How would Americans feel if America was suddenly dominated and ruled by Muslims?

Freedom does not discriminate! The government governs all, and should NEVER govern based upon a religion. For those whom cherish freedom, it is something they should all seriously think about!

No one is stopping anyone from walking into a church to worship the God of their choice. It is when idiots whom think it is okay for them to stand on the street and preach their religion but wrong for someone of a different faith to do the same thing, is the root of hypocrisy of religions.

Plus, when we here a politician talk about GOD, how do we really know what GOD they are referring to?

reply to post by brandiwine14


Im not from the states, but still...

Thank God there is a separation of church and state...

It would only take one Charismatic fundy preacher to destroy the world by saying "look its in the bible"... so it must be true

I think the founding fathers of your country realized that as well

reply to post by brandiwine14


OT but I wanted to make a observation about Church and state I find peculiar .The Justice system is a part of the state that asks you to swear on a bible . Most people in office swear on a bible ....Obviously a bible is not a church but must be a very important book that should have it's place in the class room ...I don't think that teaching kids from the bible is a good plan but teaching the biblical alternative to the theory of evolution should be a standard courtesy to all .....peace

reply to post by the2ofusr1

The Justice system is a part of the state that asks you to swear on a bible . Most people in office swear on a bible....

That is an interesting topic on it's own in this day of political and religious madness!

One thing for sure, imagine being asked to swear in a court of law and looking at the judge and say I am a non believer, and neither are you!

What a hoot that would be!

the2ofusr1
reply to post by brandiwine14

 

OT but I wanted to make a observation about Church and state I find peculiar .The Justice system is a part of the state that asks you to swear on a bible . Most people in office swear on a bible ....Obviously a bible is not a church but must be a very important book that should have it's place in the class room ...I don't think that teaching kids from the bible is a good plan but teaching the biblical alternative to the theory of evolution should be a standard courtesy to all .....peace

Two things... First is that you aren't required to swear on a bible when being sworn into office or being sworn in during court proceedings and you can leave the god part out of any oath or pledge of that nature.


The Presidential oath of office is described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Nothing in this section requires that the oath of office be taken on the Bible. Neither do the words "so help me God" appear in the oath. While Presidents often include this phrase in their inauguration ceremonies, the words are customary; they are not required by the Constitution and have no legal significance.

Additionally, we note that the words required by the Constitution are described as an "Oath or Affirmation," and that the President is allowed to simply affirm his faithfulness to the Constitution. The word "affirmation" was inserted in this section precisely to allow Presidents to avoid swearing oaths to God as a condition of taking office. This provision seems particularly intended for Quakers (who had religious objections to taking oaths), but it is worded broadly enough to encompass any person who objects to taking an oath, including non-theists.

While the example I give pertains to the president it is the same for all offices and courts.

As for teaching alternatives to evolutionary theory, its already done in Parochial Schools, Church, Sunday school, bible groups and by parents who do not believe in evolutionary theory. A there is a separation of church and state there simply isn't a place for discussing religious doctrine in public, tax payer funded schools. If the standard science education/platform isn't your cup of tea then Christian Parochial schools are always an option. And if tuition is the issue I think you will find that as long as you're a member of the congregation, most churches will cover at least part of the tuition for you. At least all the Catholic Churches in my local diocese do so and covered almost all of my tuition for the couple of years I was in catholic school.

As an anarchist, I only desire the separation of State from humanity.

reply to post by seeker1963


I have been in court a few times and every time they asked me to swear on the bible I refused . One time I was asked by a attorney why I refused ,so I told him that it says in the bible not to ..You don't have to swear on it and you can affirm ...peace

I think separation of church and state is carried way too far in many cases. Its understanding was to keep the state from enforcing religion on the people. It was not intended to bar people from expressing their religion. If students want to form a Christian, Jewish or Muslim club in their school, the school should be allowed to let it proceed. No one is being forced to take part, but these things are not allowed because if someone even sees such a thing, they can complain that their child was offended ... by not being forced to take part? Simply knowing that such a thing takes place is forcing religion now.

Similarly, we have seniors at state subsidized senior centers being told they cannot pray together at meals because of state funding ... it's endorsing religion now.

We have groups from way out of state coming in to demand to build monuments in other states because they are wanting to stick a stick in some other group's eye.

We have lost all sense of perspective and respect for one another and are now using the idea of separation, which actually exists nowhere in the COTUS, as a weapon to attack those with whom we disagree.

Let's put the old testament back into state religion.

Leviticus 25:44 clearly states that I may own slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.
I was told this only applies to Mexicans. Why can't I own a Canadian.

Well they both have a lot in common. They are based on lies corruption and deception in attempt to control a population through fear and terror.

But think here in the UK the two should be separated, there is not a huge emphasis on religion by the main politicians but it does crop up occasionally, they are too afraid to lose a percentage of the vote if they disregard it completely.


We are a multi faith country/world so there should be no religious preferences by states anyway, purely on the grounds of discrimination and fairness.

It's not a problem separating state from religion, that is done, one is legalese the other is of faith... ahem. There are problems where the two are in conflict, so the question is not should, it is how to address those problems?

Left stateside long ago ..
Theres supposed to be seperation of church and state .. in reality it opposite the church has its grubby little fingers in everything there .

The two need to be seperate religion has no business running / influencing the state.

No further comment as it would end up offending the religious.

I do believe in separation of church and state should be upheld unfortunately there are many who work tirelessly against it so in some areas the boundary has fallen down.

As for the schools if creation mythos is to be taught it belongs in theology class along with other creation mythos.

Creation mythos (all of them) have no place in the sciences they are not alternate theories as they are not evidence based.

In no way should any religion or doctrine be required curriculum in public school because the inclusion of one is at the exclusion of others.

The words separation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution. Should it? Most defiantly. Simply because it isn't right to force religious views or laws on other people that choose to not follow that faith. You hear people say America is a Christian nation no it isn't America is a land of many faiths. Thankfully our founding fathers were more intelligent than the people that think America needs to follow a certain faith.

ketsuko
We have lost all sense of perspective and respect for one another and are now using the idea of separation, which actually exists nowhere in the COTUS, as a weapon to attack those with whom we disagree.

I completely agree with this statement, respect for one another is all but gone. Both sides have taken it to the extreme yet both have great points when argued right.

I would not be taking a course on the Anthropology of religion if I did not find religion one and all of them utterly fascinating. I do see the need though for keeping religion separate, especially in politics. It is a tense subject, I can admit to loosing my cool at times as well. One day I hope respect and tolerance will be more forthcoming from all sides.


Thank you all for answering, I really appreciate it.

reply to post by brandiwine14


Then you base your laws on the emotions of animals.

And as such, you have to ask yourself: Is it right to execute or cage another, simply because they make you sad or angry?



As for your opening questions: If you truly understood Church, you would know that it is impossible to separate Church and State.

reply to post by brandiwine14


Indiana.

Separation of church and state simply meant that the state does not control religion and neither does religion control the state, but the state guarantees freedom of religious expression and it won't be taken away.

Freedom of religious expression is actually listed first in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, it comes before speech and press.

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were built around the unalienable rights given by the Creator.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

With firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence....there was in essence no separation of church and state, however, no church was to rule the state and the state could not rule the church.

Divine Providence meant God.

The question presumes that both statism and institutionalized religion (a form of state) are legitimate social concepts.

They're not. We don't need to separate them. We need to discard both of them entirely and never look back.

reply to post by brandiwine14

We absolutely, positively, need separation of church and state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What's been happening lately in politics is fundamental Christian backing of the Republican Party, as though this is the only form of Christian belief, which it most certainly is not. Think about the war between the Catholics and Protestants in England and all over Europe. Think about the alienation of Quakers, Baptists, and all the others that sought out America as a place for freedom of choice. What the argument has been about lately is whether or not the U.S. is a Christian country or not rather than the fact that there are many Christian divisions and beliefs.

The reason we should give no advantage to ANY particular faith is that we must either give all the same status or in giving one more power than any other is that we will turn into a form of Theocracy over time, with wars being fought between the various Christian faiths, as that is certainly the leaning of the country despite there being millions of people in a variety of faiths. There are Roughly 77% are a form of Christian with Catholics being about 23%. This leaves nearly a quarter of all Americans being of a different religion, and this does not take into account atheists or agnostics. I also believe it is dangerous to potentially put the reins of power into the hands of people that may have an apocalyptic death wish or do not care about the environment because "God will take care of everything" and its alllll planned out, absolving us of any responsibility to our planet it seems despite the command to be good stewards of the earth.

Recently an Illinois woman won her district for state senate despite claiming that the weather was in God's hands and that tornadoes were punishment for homosexuality. I personally do not want a religious fanatic with control over nukes and armies, the environment, restrictions on people such as women and those of other faiths. Shall we start stoning disobedient children again? Have women become second class citizens? Force people to convert? Join a church if you want. Live according to your beliefs if they don't infringe on others. Keep religion out of politics!