Your view on the relationship between Church and State

**Turnus** · October 23, 2008, 06:09 AM

This topic is not intended to be a proper debate on the separation of Church and State (though it will probably end up that way), but rather a survey of your views. By 'Church' I mean any single organised religion (not just Christianity), which could be aligned with the State.

The poll is divided into 2 sections: one for those who subscribe to religion, and one for those who do not. Here are some explanations of these terms:

Religious: For the purposes of the poll, please class yourself as religious if you have any desired affiliation with any established religion or similar, whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. Even if you are mildly aligned with one of these and accept the most basic tenets (e.g. existence of God), please class yourself in this category.

Non-religious: For the purposes of the poll, this is supposed to represent those who class themselves as Atheist , Agnostic, or similar. Those who believe in deities that have no significance in human affairs should also class themselves in this category.

As for the main purpose of the poll - separation of Church and State - I have divided the issue into five options for purposes of simplification. Note that these are supposed to represent what you would ideally desire for your state, regardless of what is actually possible (if people wish this to be changed then I shall endeavour to do so). They are as follows:

1. State anti-religious, desires to completely outlaw all religious practices.
2. Church and State completely separate, but any religious practice tolerated.
3. State mildly aligned with the Church, but allows other religious practice.
4. State strongly aligned with the Church, but allows other religious practice.
5. State competely aligned with the Church, outlaws all other religions and incorporates religious values into its ideals.

Suggestions welcome, please take the poll.

**karahan** · October 23, 2008, 07:04 AM

Church and state should be separate, the church (religion) is a personal relationship with a deity, while state is a impersonal rule over the masses, in my opinion for a proper run democracy should not align itself with any religion, and neither should it discriminate any religion.

**Roman Knight** · October 23, 2008, 07:37 AM

Possibly the only time I'll be able to do this on TWC. Antidisestablishmentarianism. There, I did it, I'll always remember this day.

**morteduzionism** · October 23, 2008, 08:19 AM

I view the relationship like that between a horny 17 yo boy and a really sexy 17 yo girl...

The boy is the church.

...using every trick and tactic to get in somewhere they're not wanted.

Basically I don't like how the church/religious people plot and conspire (for lack of a better word) to elect candidates that think like they do.

I don't think it's right for someone to have to live their life by my standards just as much as I don't think it's right for someone to manipulate the system to make me live according to theirs.

**MasterOfNone** · October 23, 2008, 11:43 AM

Just a reminder that the state and the church are organizations. I do not believe these should be mixed in our society as instititutions. However, religion and politics are not the same as church and state and so a person may believe as they wish. Everyone's politics is ultimately informed by their religious/philosophical beliefs and so any attempt to separate it could only be done by bringing systems of belief onto unequal grounds.

State and church is different though - clearly it is wrong to have state officials govern churches under the direction of the government, as it would be for church ministers to govern in public office under the direction of their church when they have not been elected to do so. Part of the reason for this is that the member or citizen did not agree to it.

However, this does not exclude a church minister from being an elected official, or an elected official from being a priest...it is the presiding structure of the two institutions that should remain separate.

**Jams79** · October 23, 2008, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by MasterOfNone

However, this does not exclude a church minister from being an elected official, or an elected official from being a priest...it is the presiding structure of the two institutions that should remain separate.

Seeing as part of a priests job (a very large part) is to spread the faith, he would be neglecting his belief by being in a position of power and not using it to help spread the faith. That is one of the main reasons why I feel they should be totally seperate. Ones is supposed to guide through law and one through belief, I feel the two should be mutually exclusive. Would you really belief that the bishop who became prime minister was not tilting the scales?

**Soulghast** · October 23, 2008, 02:47 PM

They should definitely be separate in my opinion. Spiritual and religious matters do not have anything in common with politics, and neither side should influence or enforce anything to the other. If they are not separate, one side( the church in most cases), can influence the government or use propaganda to convert people. No religion should be given support by the government, all religions should have equal rights in a state. As it is now, in Greece at least, priests often abuse their power and publicity, and can use it to commit illegal actions, and be protected under the church...

**C-Rob** · October 23, 2008, 03:12 PM

Seperation of church and state is probably the most genius thing our founders ever thought up. Religion keeps thoughts that were relevant 2000 years ago into today's world, and that isn't right. Government needs to be able to evolve and change and religion causes stupid ignorances and if the church had its power in government, it would be able to control the lives of more than just the people who want to be in it. A great evil imo. I hate the questions of gay marriage, creationism bs, stem cell research, and other issues getting into politics when they really don't mean a dang thing in the great sheme of things. Not only that, but we see in the middle east(and all of medieval europe for that matter) be compeletely stupified by having religions in places of control.

**finsternis** · October 23, 2008, 04:51 PM

I say that the state should be anti-religious (but not in the way the OP puts it). The state will not even consider bills that are based simply on a religious/traditional belief (all laws must follow logic). Also, in schools children will be taught in science what the scientific community thinks they should be taught (no creationism craziness). No religion classes in public or private schools (if parents want their kids to know a religions, they will have to teach it in the household or church). Also, if the government finds out that kids are being taught in households and/or church to hate based on religious beliefs, the government should step in and break it out (some how).

**MasterOfNone** · October 23, 2008, 05:24 PM

The Founders were informed in their politics by their religious views and it was one of them that spoke of politics as the "divine science". The whole concept of the liberties that pulled man out of the ignorance of earlier centuries was founded in religious liberty, not anti-religionism or state-enforced Christianity of the Roman church.

The problem so evident, which the last few posts clearly attest, is the imposing of one's own religion upon his fellowman in the mistaken belief that one is protecting from falsehood or harm.

The spirit of essentially banning some people from holding public office because of their beliefs is not in the spirit of liberty. Let people decide whom they elect.

I agree with John Adams, when he said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

**MaximiIian** · October 23, 2008, 05:16 PM

"I am religious; Church and State completely separate".

Yeah, that one. No establishment of religion, and no prohibition on the free exercise of any religion.