Seperation of church and state: Where is the line?

[Gertrudius]

This has always been a touchy subject, and due to this fact, I’d like this discussion to be more on the abstract and and hypothetical end of the debate in order to promote a positive atmosphere.

My personal view can be summed up well in the words of Montesquieu.

1.“We ought not to decide by divine laws what should be decided by human laws; nor determine by human what should be determined by divine laws. These two sorts of laws differ in their origin, in their object, and in their nature”

2.“Thus venerable as those ideas are which immediately spring from religion, they ought not always to serve as a first principle to the civil laws, because these have another, the general welfare of society.”

In other words, I think that a government should not be a vehicle for promoting certain beliefs, and codifying them into the legal system. The purpose of laws is to provide for the security of a nations citizens, and therefore this should be their priority. I don’t have a problem if particular laws happen to line up with religious beliefs, as long as the law was put in place using the above criteria, and not as a result of religious pressure.

So what are your guys thoughts on the matter?

[MasterOfNone]

Whereas I see your reasoning I think it must be seen that ALL laws are based on someone's belief or idea of what is moral. You cannot get away from that fact.

I believe that the separation of church and state is no less and no more than that a church as an organization should not control a state, and that a state should not control a church.

Can a priest be a politician? Yes. Can a politician be a leader of a church? Yes. They are individuals.

[The Dude]

Whereas I see your reasoning I think it must be seen that ALL laws are based on someone's belief or idea of what is moral. You cannot get away from that fact.

Hence we must work to separate morality from god, as it bothers me that many religious folk are incapable of seeing the two as distinct concepts. It doesn't matter -where- good morality comes from, as long as we can cut the ties between it and god, making sure that after preaching good behaviour, a politicians next logical step is no longer the citing of religious sources.

[Gertrudius]

Hence we must work to separate morality from god, as it bothers me that many religious folk are incapable of seeing the two as distinct concepts. It doesn't matter -where- good morality comes from, as long as we can cut the ties between it and god, making sure that after preaching good behaviour, a politicians next logical step is no longer the citing of religious sources.

I guess I agree, but I would say that the purpose of legislation is to protect the citizens and their society, therefore legislators should use that criteria to make laws. Whether our leaders see morality as from god or not is not the problem in my eyes. The problem is when they legislate according to their beliefs rather than what will benefit society as a whole. If their belief leads to a law that benefits us as citizens I really don't care what their reasoning behind it is.

So to sum it up, I agree when they are using their own sense of morality (whether it's "from god" or not) to a legislate something that is not in the best interest of their citizens, their ulterior motives should be exposed in some way. But if their "moral compass" influenced them to do things for the betterment of their nation, I don't see a problem.

Just my 2cents. Take it easy,

[Tom Paine]

Hence we must work to separate morality from god, as it bothers me that many religious folk are incapable of seeing the two as distinct concepts. It doesn't matter -where- good morality comes from, as long as we can cut the ties between it and god, making sure that after preaching good behaviour, a politicians next logical step is no longer the citing of religious sources.

Secularist as I am, I still don't see the benefit.

So long as what's enacted in law is good practice and reasonable, I don't care how politicians justify it to the public.

[Viking Prince]

@MasterOfNone

Agreed. No more need be said, but I suspect this thread will get a bit longer.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

The separation of church and state is no longer a postulate, it is a fact, at least in the civilized countries of the world. However there are certain areas where the state and church can cooperate, such as teaching, charity, helping the poor, etc. I know, not just religious organizations can do this work, but I see no problem supporting churches for a good cause.

The situation is trickier in Europe where there are historical churches with great achievements in nation-building, undeniable role in culture and their important present-day status in society. The state should acknowledge the historical role and special status of these churches by giving them certain benefits.

[IrishHitman]

The separation of church and state is no longer a postulate, it is a fact, at least in the civilized countries of the world. However there are certain areas where the state and church can cooperate, such as teaching, charity, helping the poor, etc. I know, not just religious organizations can do this work, but I see no problem supporting churches for a good cause.

The situation is trickier in Europe where there are historical churches with great achievements in nation-building, undeniable role in culture and their important present-day status in society. The state should acknowledge the historical role and special status of these churches by giving them certain benefits.

Europe is the most secular continent on earth...
You're just acting the religious apologist.

Europe was built by the sword and the coin, not by the priest.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Europe is the most secular continent on earth...
You're just acting the religious apologist.

Europe was built by the sword and the coin, not by the priest.

Great post, it added a lot to the debate! I agree with you churches don't play any role in current European societies.
You should study history a little bit more, my friend. By the way, how can you build something with a sword? :hmmm:

[MasterOfNone]

I mean that the organizations control the government, not that there are members of that organization that are influencing it according to their own beliefs.

For example, a number of the leaders in the early American government were freemasons (as I understand it), but they were not tools of the freemason leadership structure as an organization. They acted according to their several views as to what they thought right.

There was no move to "bind the conscience" as there is in factions and, sadly, even in the way many political parties operate (which I believe would have been deemed "factions" by the Founders).

[IrishHitman]

Great post, it added a lot to the debate! I agree with you churches don't play any role in current European societies.
You should study history a little bit more, my friend. By the way, how can you build something with a sword? :hmmm:

This is about church & state separation TODAY....
Appealing to dodgy historical assertions to encourage religious organisations doing "good work". Those same organisations spread their own ideologies with it. The religion part is absolutely unnecessary, and sometimes uses capital that could be used to do more good.

If you don't know the symbolism of a sword, then perhaps you need to read more history.

[MasterOfNone]

IrishHitman,

Can you not see the assertion of your own beliefs at the expense of others' because of the presupposition that you are correct which is the very thing you seem to be against in those religious influences?

Think man. Don't react.

[Viking Prince]

This is why there is such an uproar in Denmark when the state pays to build a mosque. Best to cut those strings regardles of what was in the past. Acknowledge the great deeds of the past, but today a church should not control the state and the state should not support or control any given church. This does not mean that cooperation cannot exist between religions (note the plural) and the state.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Honestly, I don't think that one could form an opinion in this matter regardless of his religious views. Christianity teaches that state and church have common goals, atheism teaches that churches are residues of the past, unnecessary burdens of modern society.

today a church should not control the state

As I said this is no longer a postulate in modern societies. Church does not control the state.

[MasterOfNone]

It depends what you mean. I think "church" means "belief systems". For example, it would be just as wrong for a non-religious belief system to control government as it would for a religious group. The principle applies whether the group is religious or not. The Framers of the US Constitution called these groups "factions" and the government was set up to make any one faction controlling government as hard as possible to achieve.

[L'Ost]

Honestly, I don't think that one could form an opinion in this matter regardless of his religious views. Christianity teaches that state and church have common goals, atheism teaches that churches are residues of the past, unnecessary burdens of modern society.

As I said this is no longer a postulate in modern societies. Church does not control the state.

In the state, Atheism is not the opposit of Religion. The opposite of religious, in the state, is lay.

Our state is fully lay, we're the only state in the world like this to "cross the line" according to the topic of this thread, and it's one of France's prefered "features" for French people :p

And this don't makes us eating children or raping dead goats.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I think it must be seen that ALL laws are based on someone's belief or idea of what is moral. You cannot get away from that fact.

it would be just as wrong for a non-religious belief system to control government as it would for a religious group.

I agree with your first statement, but these statements seem to be contradicting each other (I don't want to be nit-picking, maybe I misunderstood them).

[removeduser_426582376423734]

How can you have a secular faction in politics if politics is meant to be secular?

[Ummon]

Aphorismata aside, how far from where you live is the nearest church?

[Boer]

Aphorismata aside, how far from where you live is the nearest church?

3 blocks.

I think the separation between church and state should cover more that simply stopping a church from running the government or vice verse. I think it should also apply when a church attempts to force its members to vote a certain way. I'm reminded of a few stories of Priests saying they'd refuse communion to anyone who voted for Kerry (although how they'd find out I'm not sure). If my pastor got up to preach today and his sermon was "If you oppose the economic stimulus plan your going to hell," I'd see that as a violation of the separation of church and state. I don't want my "authority" of a church to become political capital.

while it clear that my moral/ethical opinions are based at least partly in religion and will be used to help make political decisions, I do not want to make my church's fundamental beliefs a matter of civil law.