Politics And Religion

[309756]

I'm a huge fan of the separation of church and state and I was wondering what other people's opinions were, so go ahead and post.

[__hazyxeyes]

A few months ago wasn't there a church that kicked out members for not voting for Bush? That's so screwed up, I'm a firm believer in the seperation of church and state as well.

[!XogFog]

Why shouldn't they be allowed to endorse a candidate? They have free speech. However, anyone who "preaches politics" or otherwise uses their pulpit to endorse certain candidates doesn't deserve their pulpit.

[XTorn2PiecesLPX]

If the candidate isd that religion or whats to be supported by a religion then so be it. I mean, its their canpaigne, if they wanna have a religious supporter then go right ahead i say.

[turtbub]

I think it's fine for churches to endorse politicians, but I agree with !XogFog that it should only be done outside of the actual church service.



If that makes sense...

[Toy Soldier]

Some religions believe that G-d personally chose the person who is in charge of the state, and therefore we should obey them...just what I've been taught in Ethics. I think sometimes having religion involved in Politics though is a bad idea, especially if the state is a mulitcultural state, and say you have just one relgion being involved in Politics.



~*~Ruth~*~

[yoaliens3000]

This definition of separation of church and state you hold isnt even in the constitution.

[SirPostAlot]

I DO NOT believe it is right, becuase these religions abuse there right by donating money to the church to get the politions to favor there side...



granted this could happen to any social organization, i.e. if Ford donates money, the gov't could pass a bill to rebate anyone who bought a Ford, but that is not as likily nor as socially impacting as catholics, for instance, donating a huge amount of money to the bush campaign and coincidentally, bush is veering toward pro life and anti-same-sex-marriage...



~Jeff~

[SirPostAlot]

Originally posted by yoaliens3000@Jul 31 2005, 10:16 PM

This definition of separation of church and state you hold isnt even in the constitution.

[right][/right]

...true...because seperation of church and state is to keep the state out of the church...but still we can logically assume it means keeping church out of state, though in the constatution, it doesn't state that it just says to keep the state out of the church...



~Jeff~

[FranklinF]

yes it is ok as long as they arent going along brain washing thier fallowers... as well as for the reverse politicians should state thier beliefs but not try to force people to take them... the world needs to turn people need to accept-MARY

[309756]

Establishment Clause, first amendment.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...



Free Exercise Clause, first amendment.



... or free exercise thereof.



As early as the 18th century, this "wall of separation" was recognized as a peripheral right in addition to the establishment and free exercise clauses by Jefferson; during the nineteenth century, state churches (as opposed to fedeal ones) were abolished; and now, we must recognize precedent.

[_ofunsoundmind]

I believe that everyone has the right to freedom of speech. Even if they are just speaking their mind, it really doesn't make a difference because it's not like the politicians would actually listen to them (not trying to bash politicians, but it's true).



x Shelle

[Jaegermeister]

I think that a church, as an organization can endorse a candidate if they choose. I do think that the churches that do that are in poor taste though. The problem (especially with this election) is that people are swayed more by the moral issues at hand then by other things the parties stand for, economic growth, size of government, role of government, ect. So voting democrat isn't neccesarily voting pro homos and pro abortion and pro atheism or any of that. So it's a bit tacky for churches to back one candidate on moral grounds alone, becasue all that will do is alienate other members.



tJ

[A! Elbereth]

It isn't wrong, they have a right to support whomever they want. Besides... it would be kind of difficult for a group of people sharing the same beliefs not to.

[yoaliens3000]

Originally posted by SirPostAlot+Jul 31 2005, 10:51 PM--

[/right]

[/b]

...true...because seperation of church and state is to keep the state out of the church...but still we can logically assume it means keeping church out of state, though in the constatution, it doesn't state that it just says to keep the state out of the church...



~Jeff~

[right][/right]

[/b][/quote]

I do not understand that at all.

[SirPostAlot]

Originally posted by yoaliens3000@Aug 2 2005, 03:55 PM

...true...because seperation of church and state is to keep the state out of the church...but still we can logically assume it means keeping church out of state, though in the constatution, it doesn't state that it just says to keep the state out of the church...

I do not understand that at all.

[right][/right]

to simplify, all the constatution says is to keep state (the gov't) out of the religious perpous, i.e. you can't make one religion for the whole country...



the constatution does not say that the church has to remain out of the gov't...\





does that make sence?



~Jeff~

[309756]

Hey, but here's the dilemma:



If every church has the right to be a political organization, why don't they pay taxes like political organizations do?



I mean, it's not fair to the secular interest groups if the churches don't have to pay taxes, that's what the separation of church and state is all about.



For example, there was a church in North Carolina that kicked out twelve people for voting for John Kerry... just an example of what can happen when the two mix.



And it's perfectly all right for pastors and churches and people to have their political opinions. Just don't dress it up as God's will. Because it certainly is not God's will for anything in American politics to happen. Does anyone remember Watergate?



Well, a Christian "minister" who also works on the Bush campaign was just charged with racketeering for using the Gospel to get land from a Native American reservation... this is what can happen.



Yep. And it IS in the constitution. See my prveious post.

[yoaliens3000]

Originally posted by pandasandpenguins@Aug 3 2005, 09:26 PM

Yep. And it IS in the constitution. See my prveious post.

[right][/right]

Where in the constitution? That part you copyed and pasted doesnt even talk about what your saying.



And those examples you have above, who care? I can make up stories attacking anything. So that doesnt mean anything. How does the constitution have anything to prevent people getting kicked out of church? I dont even understand the point of those examples.

[!XogFog]

Originally posted by yoaliens3000+Aug 5 2005, 11:12 AM--

[/right]

[/b]

Where in the constitution? That part you copyed and pasted doesnt even talk about what your saying.



And those examples you have above, who care? I can make up stories attacking anything. So that doesnt mean anything. How does the constitution have anything to prevent people getting kicked out of church? I dont even understand the point of those examples.

[right][/right]

[/b][/quote]



The Constitution itself doesn't say "church and state must be separated" but the Supreme Court, though their rulings, have established this rule based on parts of the Constitution, so it carries the same weight.

[yoaliens3000]

Originally posted by !XogFog+Aug 5 2005, 02:57 PM--

[/right]

[/b]

Where in the constitution? That part you copyed and pasted doesnt even talk about what your saying.



And those examples you have above, who care? I can make up stories attacking anything. So that doesnt mean anything. How does the constitution have anything to prevent people getting kicked out of church? I dont even understand the point of those examples.

[right][/right]

[/b][/quote]



The Constitution itself doesn't say "church and state must be separated" but the Supreme Court, though their rulings, have established this rule based on parts of the Constitution, so it carries the same weight.

[right][/right]

[/b][/quote]





Im not really sure which rulings your talking about. If you know of any, please tell me.