Opinion of the term "Seperation of church and state"

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Freedom term, of course. (given my username)

[ElectionsGuy]

The [religious] right claims to love the constitution but hates this part of it or pretends it doesn't exist. Freedom term

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The [religious] right claims to love the constitution but hates this part of it or pretends it doesn't exist. Freedom term

Technically, that phrase isn't part of our constitution.

[ElectionsGuy]

The [religious] right claims to love the constitution but hates this part of it or pretends it doesn't exist. Freedom term

Technically, that phrase isn't part of our constitution.

Not directly, but the theme of it definitely is.

[Cory]

The [religious] right claims to love the constitution but hates this part of it or pretends it doesn't exist. Freedom term

Technically, that phrase isn't part of our constitution.

Not directly, but the theme of it definitely is.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Great in the context that Jefferson used it, but it's been overextended, with people assuming it means that a person shouldn't be taken seriously if they have a political view informed by their faith.
In Jefferson's view the state was supposed to be limited, but now people use this phrase with the opposite assumption that the entire public sphere is the sphere of the state and religion is relegated to inside the walls of the church.

[Mechaman]

The idea?  Probably one of the greatest we have.

As in the way that it is used in modern political discourse?  lolno.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The idea?  Probably one of the greatest we have.

As in the way that it is used in modern political discourse?  lolno.

also has a bit of a checkered past in terms of its appropriation by anti-Catholic nativists.

[Mechaman]

The idea?  Probably one of the greatest we have.

As in the way that it is used in modern political discourse?  lolno.

also has a bit of a checkered past in terms of its appropriation by anti-Catholic nativists.

Well yes that too.  But by what is written in the Constitution (as well as the sympathies of Jefferson and other) and the original intent, FT.

[Del Tachi]

Freedom term.

Especially if one considers the fact that, if interpreted correctly, the Establishment Clause's only restriction on the federal government is that it may not establish a state religion.

[windjammer]

Lol no. I don't understand why religion should be separated. In Sweden, that's not the case, and Sweden isn't a dictatorship.

And seriously, now in France the "separation of church and state" is used by the far right in order to defend their racist views.

[Mechaman]

Lol no. I don't understand why religion should be separated. In Sweden, that's not the case, and Sweden isn't a dictatorship.

And seriously, now in France the "separation of church and state" is used by the far right in order to defend their racist views.

I'm not claiming that a state endorsed religion is automatically bad, but I think it sets a bad precedent if all the citizens of the state are forced to pay tithes to an establishment of religion.  What works in one place might not work in another.  Sweden's established church is actually one of the very few things I don't like about it, actually.  Given my ancestral religious background, I can't imagine I would enjoy an alternate United States where somebody left off the part about religious freedoms.  Further, given the anti-Islamic bigotry in this country over the past decade and a half, I certainly see nothing wrong with defending the concept (as it's supposed to mean) today.

And maybe this is just me being a sentimental American here, but what is wrong with people having the right to express their views, no matter how wrong they are?  Or do you mean that the far right in France is actively pushing for policies that affect other people based on their religious views, while unironically claiming that there is a separation of church and state?  If it's the latter I agree and it's more of a problem of the extreme dishonesty that is now in the public debate about what those terms even mean.  In short, I don't believe the State should play God, though there are some legislators in our country who seem to think it should.

Again, the problem is that the terms have been so bastardized that almost anybody who actually thinks about the words "separation of church and state" don't know what the hell anybody who uses those words for political talking points means now days.  A shame, really.

[windjammer]

Lol no. I don't understand why religion should be separated. In Sweden, that's not the case, and Sweden isn't a dictatorship.

And seriously, now in France the "separation of church and state" is used by the far right in order to defend their racist views.

I'm not claiming that a state endorsed religion is automatically bad, but I think it sets a bad precedent if all the citizens of the state are forced to pay tithes to an establishment of religion.  What works in one place might not work in another.  Sweden's established church is actually one of the very few things I don't like about it, actually.  Given my ancestral religious background, I can't imagine I would enjoy an alternate United States where somebody left off the part about religious freedoms.  Further, given the anti-Islamic bigotry in this country over the past decade and a half, I certainly see nothing wrong with defending the concept (as it's supposed to mean) today.

And maybe this is just me being a sentimental American here, but what is wrong with people having the right to express their views, no matter how wrong they are?  Or do you mean that the far right in France is actively pushing for policies that affect other people based on their religious views, while unironically claiming that there is a separation of church and state?  If it's the latter I agree and it's more of a problem of the extreme dishonesty that is now in the public debate about what those terms even mean.  In short, I don't believe the State should play God, though there are some legislators in our country who seem to think it should.

Again, the problem is that the terms have been so bastardized that almost anybody who actually thinks about the words "separation of church and state" don't know what the hell anybody who uses those words for political talking points means now days.  A shame, really.

Well, I consider religion as an institution should be promoted. I'm of course not a homophobic, crazy Todd Akin,... But I consider religion as a protection against the rise of individualism. Yes, you will point out that there are other ways to fight against individualism, maybe some guys will say that individualism is a good thing, that's defendable too.

But, I live in France, a country which is deeply laic for more than 100 years. I can assure you that people who were behind the seperation of church and state weren't definitely not "progressive". To be fair, they would be today the worst kind of democrats (according to me): the Cuomo democrats. Nothing progressive economically. Extremely individualist too. The French Revolution, that was definitely anti religion, destroyed the "unions" in France, that were legal during the Ancien Regime. (Yeah, the French Revolution wasn't a progressive revolution at all economically).

When I see who strongly supports the seperation of church and state in France, I definitely believe that they are pursuing an agenda valorizing individualism (and as you may know, I don't believe in free will, we are totally socially built, but that's my opinion again ).

That's why I oppose the seperation of church and state, because I believe (wrongly or not) that it promotes individualism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be honest, I seriously don't understand the love of Americans for the  right of free speech (the worst example is for instance the Westboro Church). In France, if you say racist, homophobic, anti Jew comments, you can be fined or go to jail? And I seriously prefer that than the current american system, but that's my opinion. Horrible comments shouldn't be tolerated.

In France, currently, the far Right, the Panzer Girl troops are using the "seperation of church and state" as a way to bash the current Muslims living in France. I don't know how to translate the example that comes to my mind  in english, but trust me, they use the seperation of church and state in order to bash immigrants.


Me, what I would like, it would be the current German system. I'm of course Catholic but the funding shouldn't be limited to this religion in France. Judaïsm, Muslim, Catholiscism, and anything else should be funded by the state (by their adherents of course). I believe if religions are institutionalized, there would be less problems.

[Franzl]

Two of the few things I legitimately prefer about the American system are a.) the legal separation of church and state. It's obvious that it does not lead to a lack of religion in society. Many countries with state churches are far more secular in practice.

And b.) the nearly absolute protection of free speech. There's nothing quite like the 1st amendment. (Of course, it can also be abused, such as by definimg corporate campaign spending as "speech").

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Neutral.  I don't believe in theocracy, but I certainly support religious freedom.

Freedom term.

Especially if one considers the fact that, if interpreted correctly, the Establishment Clause's only restriction on the federal government is that it may not establish a state religion.

[Maxwell]

Absolute FT.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Made up term.  Did they spell it incorrectly when they made it up?   HT 

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Great in the context that Jefferson used it, but it's been overextended, with people assuming it means that a person shouldn't be taken seriously if they have a political view informed by their faith.

Having policies or political views that were inspired by one's faith isn't really the problem; the problem is those who wish to impose certain mores on individuals who do not adhere to the beliefs of the religion that form the sole basis for a law.  This becomes especially problematic when one religious group wants to base laws on something that other religious groups do not agree with.  Gay marriage is perhaps the best example of this - i.e. churches that condemn homosexuality and don't recognize gay relationships versus the growing number of churches that affirm, ordain, and marry homosexuals.

[TNF]

Excellent, but I would prefer a stronger separation, perhaps along the lines of our republican brethren in France. Public religious displays should not be allowed on government property, prayers shouldn't be said at school graduations or before football games, and churches should be taxed like any other entity.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Great in the context that Jefferson used it, but it's been overextended, with people assuming it means that a person shouldn't be taken seriously if they have a political view informed by their faith.

Having policies or political views that were inspired by one's faith isn't really the problem; the problem is those who wish to impose certain mores on individuals who do not adhere to the beliefs of the religion that form the sole basis for a law.  This becomes especially problematic when one religious group wants to base laws on something that other religious groups do not agree with.  Gay marriage is perhaps the best example of this - i.e. churches that condemn homosexuality and don't recognize gay relationships versus the growing number of churches that affirm, ordain, and marry homosexuals.

That problem is not unique to religious views. It is true of ideology in general that some people want to prohibit or command certain things on the basis of their ideology.  Why should religious ideologies be treated differently in this regard?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Great in the context that Jefferson used it, but it's been overextended, with people assuming it means that a person shouldn't be taken seriously if they have a political view informed by their faith.

Having policies or political views that were inspired by one's faith isn't really the problem; the problem is those who wish to impose certain mores on individuals who do not adhere to the beliefs of the religion that form the sole basis for a law.  This becomes especially problematic when one religious group wants to base laws on something that other religious groups do not agree with.  Gay marriage is perhaps the best example of this - i.e. churches that condemn homosexuality and don't recognize gay relationships versus the growing number of churches that affirm, ordain, and marry homosexuals.

That problem is not unique to religious views. It is true of ideology in general that some people want to prohibit or command certain things on the basis of their ideology.  Why should religious ideologies be treated differently in this regard?

I have never been of the belief that policy should run solely on ideological lines.  But even if it were, the proponents of any policy have the burden of justifying why their approach is preferable to another approach.  "The government should do this because my religion/ideology says x" says nothing about the inherent value of the idea.

[TNF]

Great in the context that Jefferson used it, but it's been overextended, with people assuming it means that a person shouldn't be taken seriously if they have a political view informed by their faith.

Having policies or political views that were inspired by one's faith isn't really the problem; the problem is those who wish to impose certain mores on individuals who do not adhere to the beliefs of the religion that form the sole basis for a law.  This becomes especially problematic when one religious group wants to base laws on something that other religious groups do not agree with.  Gay marriage is perhaps the best example of this - i.e. churches that condemn homosexuality and don't recognize gay relationships versus the growing number of churches that affirm, ordain, and marry homosexuals.

That problem is not unique to religious views. It is true of ideology in general that some people want to prohibit or command certain things on the basis of their ideology.  Why should religious ideologies be treated differently in this regard?

I have never been of the belief that policy should run solely on ideological lines.  But even if it were, the proponents of any policy have the burden of justifying why their approach is preferable to another approach.  "The government should do this because my religion/ideology says x" says nothing about the inherent value of the idea.

This is an ideological statement in and of itself.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Great in the context that Jefferson used it, but it's been overextended, with people assuming it means that a person shouldn't be taken seriously if they have a political view informed by their faith.

Having policies or political views that were inspired by one's faith isn't really the problem; the problem is those who wish to impose certain mores on individuals who do not adhere to the beliefs of the religion that form the sole basis for a law.  This becomes especially problematic when one religious group wants to base laws on something that other religious groups do not agree with.  Gay marriage is perhaps the best example of this - i.e. churches that condemn homosexuality and don't recognize gay relationships versus the growing number of churches that affirm, ordain, and marry homosexuals.

That problem is not unique to religious views. It is true of ideology in general that some people want to prohibit or command certain things on the basis of their ideology.  Why should religious ideologies be treated differently in this regard?

I have never been of the belief that policy should run solely on ideological lines.  But even if it were, the proponents of any policy have the burden of justifying why their approach is preferable to another approach.  "The government should do this because my religion/ideology says x" says nothing about the inherent value of the idea.

This is an ideological statement in and of itself.

No, it isn't.

[TNF]

Of course it is. The idea that "ideology" should not guide decisionmaking is dripping with ideology. It assumes that non-ideological solutions are preferable to "ideological" ones, and of course, we all know what non-ideological solutions are: largely centrist, liberal (in the correct sense of the term), and status quo. Anyone claiming to be non-ideological or proposing non-ideological solutions is not being honest because it's impossible to not be ideological. It only seems non-ideological because that ideology (liberalism) is the dominant one in every single area of our society.

[RogueBeaver]

The idea?  Probably one of the greatest we have.

As in the way that it is used in modern political discourse?  lolno.